Workcover discussion place for injured workers. Current
Thanks to all who have visited and contributed to this site over its first year. Do not hesitate to take the time to click on the links above which also support this site. Please feel free to read or post about your experiences with WorkCover.
There are many who have written on here, the address has even been published in Adelaide Online. Leon Byner and Bob Francis also take many calls and emails on the WorkCover situation. you could leave a false name. You are only giving your opinion, neither right or wrong, its just an opinion.
Posted by Crazy (the third one) at 6:38 PM, 15/2/2008
I have gone on strike before while I was on Workcover. Did not seem to do much.
Perhaps Workcover did not have much to lose. I mean they all still had their jobs, the case managers still got paid, and the Administrative staff at Workcover and the board obviously do not care. After all the more injured workers on the system the better the business. Its only when they get injured workers who are trouble makers that they give them a hard time.
What sort of a system is it that thrives on keeping injured workers on the system longer??
The new legislation wll effect 65,000 workers, This is where the unions without Janet Giles input should plan a demonstration. Ths current system is just out of control at the moment, not answerarable to anyone or anything. If the current system is wrongly abused it will send the state into a minefield.
As you can see, the Government, WorkCover and Business SA are in a no win situation.
The old days people had to walk the streets, today we have emails ans other means.
• Sustained injury at the start of employment in March 2000, First experienced symptoms soon after.
• Continued to work until February 2001.
• Put in claim as symptoms persist.
• 9 months sitting on the claim without determination. As soon as I appointed a lawyer, claim approved (6/5/2002)
• Stated I was overpaid approximate $6000
• Ended up underpaid by $30 000 due to back dating date of initial Doctors consultation.
• Surveillance.
• 3/05/04 questioning treating Specialist on purpose of surgery which lead to a delay.
• Lawyers stating in writing my claim is unreasonable, frivolous and vexatious and abuse of the process
• Donaldson Walsh made an Independent examination was told when I arrived the specialist was not notified. No examination performed.
• Job seeing goals unsuitable to lack of experience
• 1st Work trial checking footy tips for 3 months
• 2nd Work trial had no clearance from my treating specialist
• 3rd Work trial filing of deceased patients in aged care facility (depression)
• 1st Rehabilitation Provider ceased providing my service halfway through work placement at aged case facility without letting employer of facility know.
• 2nd rehabilitation consultant Job placement knew of my accepted depression claim accepted and sought a placement at another aged care facility.
• In 2003 I attempted without success to be retrained, rehabilitation consultant refuses my request
• Another job placement was sought at Autism SA for 8hrs a day, one day a week
• An employer contacting me personally to work in a spice manufacturing shop. Medical reports states that I only work in a clean environment.
• End of 2004, my request was finally accepted
• Misleading reports
• Failing to note treatments in monthly progressive reports
• Certificates not acknowledged
• Dealing with my lawyers without my knowledge – lawyer charging me
• Not sent doctors reports until I requested them
• Always following up reimbursements, which lead to anxiety and always short of income.
• Rejection of surgery after report from treating doctor
• Invalid medical clearance forms to obtain information from treating specialist.
• Received reports from other patients in my FOI
• Rehabilitation plans not sent.
• Described by my rehabilitation consultant I was “Intimidating and threatening” in a closure report which went to all treating specialist and new rehabilitation consultant.
• Third Rehabilitation consultant requesting my treating specialists to change prescribed medical certificate without my knowledge or presence.
• Fourth rehabilitation consultant also tried to change capacity in my presence but was unsuccessful, I was told this was part of the Act for retraining. I asked her to supply me such act, she mentioned it is in the case manager’s manual.
• Work Covers rehabilitation costs to date = $62,800
• WorkCover Layers fees costs to date = $ 52,000
• My Legal fee = $38,900
• Job goals stated remuneration were only half of my pre injury income.
• Have had 18 operations as late as last week that is relevant to my workplace injury.
• Overdosed 3 times and needed hospitalisation.
• Rehabilitation consultants not attending meetings.
• Told I would have to find my own employment.
• Would not allow me to travel interstate (due it will effect my rehabilitation), could have disputed but no motivation.
• Rehabilitation plans stated I was cleared for work from a Doctor that doesn’t prescribe my certificates.
• Rehabilitation plans not given to me until half way through the agreement. (part 2) Part 1, I get a copy as they have known to change it if a copy isn’t given.
David Hicks had it easier than you, he wasnt detained as long as you, didnt have continual surgery and free legal fees, he can at least make a mint by selling his story.
Your experience with Workcover is almost identical to mine.
I heard also about a case recently of a buy where Workcover spent $60000 a shot on so called experts who had never consulted an inured worker to give medical opinions.
I say experts because they paid that to two of them for the same claim. Now does it make you wonder how responsibly Workcover is spending employers money?
State parliament will investigate Labor's proposed sale and redevelopment of Glenside hospital.
Liberal deputy leader Vickie Chapman instigated the Upper house committee which will examine the sale.
Forty two per cent of the hospital grounds are to go under the hammer for housing, commercial development and a supermarket. the selection of the supermarket operator, which was done without public tender by Mental Health Minister Gail Gargo , is the subject of a separate inquiry by the Auditor general.
"there is no evidence of corruption," Ms Chapman said. " But to my eyes this deal is putrid. Nothing has been presented which justifies it and I think the government hasn't come clean."
So dear Minister please tell us. A supermarket gets a priority position, no public tender, the deal is all done behind closed doors
What benefits did you Gaigo get from the deal?
This is clearly not accountable government where land deals can be signed up and delivered by Ministers.
And of course Mr Rann we the voters in this state can rely on the ICAC to investigate this matter fully.
If Ms Chapman says there is no evidence of corruption who is going to be the independent party investigating the matter for parliament?
seeme like we may have some allies in the transport industry now that Carter has come in to fix the transport problem. Wasnt he appointed to do the same with Workcover in 2003? how much has it gone backwards since then?
Now Bruce Carter is helping out Pat Conlon with his transport mess do not be surprised if you get a letter from Workcover in the near future about your mode of travel. It could read something like this.
Due to the rising cost of transport of injured workers to medical appointments Workcover is now reviewing all reimbursements made for travel to medical and other appointments in private vehicles.
As from 30 February Workcover may not reimburse your private travel expenses.
Workcover will continue to refund your public transport costs to and from medical appointments related to your claim.
Posted by Common sense prevails at 9:33 AM, 17/2/2008
Re; Above comment, we will never make any appointments on time if we have to use public transport. Maybe its a scam they can hit us with sec 36 for being late for Appointments, case meetings, job trials etc.........
Business SA, "mish-mash of old ideologies".death of a workers
ONE of the state's biggest unions believes reinstating Common Law claims and reducing the number of self-insured companies will help wipe out escalating WorkCover liabilities.
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union also is raising the idea of introducing the charge of industrial manslaughter for company bosses found negligent after the death of a worker.
AMWU state secretary John Camillo said the union was prompted to make a submission to a current review following recommendations by the WorkCover board to slash workers' benefits. While that option had been rejected by the Government, the union also said it needed to develop options as unfunded liabilities were predicted to hit the $1 billion mark in June - a figure that would not be confirmed until later in the year.
Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright declined to comment on submissions to the review but said the Government did not support the inclusion of industrial manslaughter in Occupational Health and Safety legislation.
Business SA described the submission as a "mish-mash of old ideologies".
Here is Victorias WorkCovers legislation.
If your claim is ACCEPTED, you are covered
You will receive weekly payments which start at 95% of your average salary for the previous 12 months for any time you have off work. After 13 weeks this will decrease to 75% if you cannot work or 60% if you can work. Your rate will include your average overtime and shift allowance for the first 26 weeks
Weekly payments only last for 104 weeks unless you are totally incapacitated for work
You will be covered for medical and like expenses. These include visits to your doctor, physiotherapy, travelling costs, home help, surgery, pharmaceuticals, aids, rehabilitation services, x-rays, MRIs etc
Your doctor should not charge you directly if you have an accepted claim. The doctor should send the invoice/account to your employer
Give all receipts to your employer. Make sure you keep a copy.
My argument:
If you consider that the unfunded liability In SA is because of totally incapacitated workers, how is this going to solve the problem, as Business SA have stated they want to have a similar legislation to Victorias.
Here again is the section that I refer to.
Weekly payments only last for 104 weeks unless you are totally incapacitated for work.
Therefore there would be no change........Figure?
The blame game. Why are injured workers losing their entitlements because South Australia has the only underperforming Workers Compensation scheme in the Country?
If this was the private sector the razor gang would be cutting costs from the top down not the bottom up.
I wonder how an injured worker and his family is supposed to survive for years on end while they wait for their wages disputes to be resolved quoting "ceasing maintenance until disputes were resolved with any arrears paid to the worker " clearly the injured workers will not have any financial resources to fight back if the board has its way. They will simply join the ranks of the oppressed majority.
By the way has anyone looked at replacing the board and the management?
I just found this site through Adelaide Now comments on WorkCover, i can not believe such a site existed. It is however comforting that it is actually a good site without any abuse. Full congratulations to whoever started this (If you were chairperson of the Board, we wouldnt have these problems)
In Victoria, workers are entitled to 130 weeks of weekly payments (not 104) and payments are reduced to 75% (not 60%) after 13 weeks regardless of whether you’re working or not.
I understand in victoria you get common law rites and can sue your employer. When i got injured my boss never wanted me to come to work again and now i am stuck on workcover. Workcover did nothing about it. I want to get off workcover but my case manager steve does nothing about it. I have been on Workcover for five years now and just want to get off so i can get myself some part time work sometime. I spend all my time seeing doctors and going to tribunal. I know the act says two years to get you off and do a review but they never do it properly
Congratulations for quitting the board Ms Giles.
Its such a pity that other members of the board do not have the same understanding of the actual role and objects of the board.
For those who may be unsure they are as follows from the Workcover corporation act.
WORKCOVER CORPORATION ACT 1994 - SECT 12
12—Primary objects
The Corporation's primary objects are—
(a) to reduce, as far as practicable, the
incidence and the severity of work-related injuries;
and
(b) to ensure, as far as practicable, the prompt and
effective rehabilitation of workers who suffer
work-related injuries; and
(c) to provide fair compensation for work-related
injuries; and
(d) to keep employers' costs to the minimum that
is consistent with the attainment of the objects
mentioned above.
PS. Bruce if you have any trouble understanding what fair compensation means. It is what is fair to injured workers and their families after they are injured at work through no fault of their own. It does not have anything to do with fair compensation for board members for failing to rehabilitate injured workers or fair compensation for denying them their rights, nor does it have anything to do with fair compensation for Workcover employees who are pressured into prosecuting injured workers instead of rehabilitating them back into the workforce.
Janet Giles quits board to defend injured workers
Article from: The Advertiser
JOANNA VAUGHAN, POLITICAL REPORTER
February 18, 2008 12:56pm
SOUTH Australian Unions secretary Janet Giles has quit the WorkCover board so she can fight a planned compensation cut to injured workers.
The Advertiser reported today that WorkCover payouts to injured workers are about to be cut by the Rann Government, more than a year after the controversial move was recommended by the group's board.
A report into WorkCover by financial expert Alan Clayton is before Cabinet and about to be released, with business and economic experts saying cutting benefits is the only way to reduce WorkCover's rapidly growing liabilities.
Ms Giles who has been a member of the WorkCover board for more than five years, said she could not defend workers rights if she was still on the board.
She made the decision after reading the story titled ``WorkCover Compo Cuts'' in The Advertiser this morning.
``I'm resigning from the board because it's my job to defend workers - and I cannot do this with the restrictions placed on board members,'' she said.
``I also will not be gagged from scrutinising the motives of the business lobby, which seeks to cut their levy rates at injures workers' expenses.
The challenge that some employers continue to avoid is to ensure workplaces are safe and assist in the safe return to work of their injured workers.''
If the planned cut goes ahead, unions will publicly campaign to ensure working people in SA were protected when they are injured, but also return to work as soon as possible.
Her resignation is effective immediately.
With Rann and Wright softening up the media for their assault on workers rights, it can't be too long before a Marv Heemayer lodges an appeal against their treatment?
I wholly support Janet's position to resign from the board. Obviously she recognised that the spirit of the act is not being complied with by the Board members and decided enough was enough. She has taken her stand.
I saw media Mike giving dribbling and drooling( yet again) on the News last night. I am surprised he has not read the review yet or even been briefed on it. Surely as premier he would need to know what is being done to fix the potential $billion dollar liability that is looming with Workcover.
Perhaps he was misleading the public although he may put all his faith in the missing in action Minister Wright and Bruce. That would give you some idea of how the state is really being managed (not).
Giles quits to help workers
Article from: The Advertiser
JOANNA VAUGHAN, POLITICAL REPORTER
February 18, 2008 12:56pm
SOUTH Australian Unions secretary Janet Giles has quit the WorkCover board so she can fight a planned compensation cut to injured workers.
The Advertiser reported today that WorkCover payouts to injured workers are about to be cut by the Rann Government, more than a year after the controversial move was recommended by the group's board.
A report into WorkCover by financial expert Alan Clayton is before Cabinet and about to be released, with business and economic experts saying cutting benefits is the only way to reduce WorkCover's rapidly growing liabilities.
Ms Giles who has been a member of the WorkCover board for more than five years, said she could not defend workers rights if she was still on the board.
She made the decision after reading the story titled ``WorkCover Compo Cuts'' in The Advertiser this morning.
``I'm resigning from the board because it's my job to defend workers - and I cannot do this with the restrictions placed on board members,'' she said.
``I also will not be gagged from scrutinising the motives of the business lobby, which seeks to cut their levy rates at injures workers' expenses.
The challenge that some employers continue to avoid is to ensure workplaces are safe and assist in the safe return to work of their injured workers.''
If the planned cut goes ahead, unions will publicly campaign to ensure working people in SA were protected when they are injured, but also return to work as soon as possible.
Her resignation is effective immediately.
Comments
Congratualtions to Janet Giles for stepping out of the circle of greed constantly demonstrated by the employer,and acknowledging that injured workers are not getting true value of care and financial support after they have been injured at work. There are many workers who are injured seriously and will never work again and yes there are those workers who attempt to "rort" the system thus giving genuine receivers of compensation a bad image. It is not this however that needs to be addessed but the imbalance of the system that is unfair and this is what Janet Giles is demonstrating about. Firstly a worker seriously injured not only has the pain and suffering to go through but also the massive loss of wages. After 2 years their salary is cut by 20% gross and although the system allows the worker to be able to claim for all matters pertaining to their injury, ie. medicines, travel, special needs including frames walking sticks etc, it is the little matters that get overlooked such as the extra panadol, or the one of massage to relieve the pain that envelopes consistently a body that is slowly being broken by the pain and the legal wrangle. The worker has to suffer that much indignity when attempting to make a claim that a good majority do not claim any more purely because it is made too difficult to do so. Next the loss of superannuation. The worker no longer receives any benefit here and like other workers who will retire with healthy packages the injured worker will retire with an unhealthy bank balance and an unhealthy body.Today workers are encouraged to contribute to their futures by investing in super plans well Mr Rann tell the permantely injured worker who cannot play with their grandchildren cannot feed themselves nor bathe or dress themselves how they are going to save for their future-what future Mr Rann? come out of your ivory tower stop spruiking about how the injured workers are ruining the states economy by an organisation that cannot run their business and instead of cutting the injured workers salary even more cut the salary of the Workcover Corporation "fatcats" and yours as well by 20% and cancel your superannuation and see how well the states economy will improve and how not well you will llive. Well done Janet Giles for standing up and being counted for an issue that so many are prepared to just sweep under the carpet, blame the injured workers when in the first place it was not their fault they are in the position they are.Yes Mr Rann it will do some of your overweight ministers to take a 20% paycut not just freeze what they have now and say what a good job the government is doing in controlling the states economy and how responsible government is for acting in this manner - who are you trying to fool certainly not the true injured workers who from the day they were rushed into hospital with a life threatening injury and has suffered financially and medically ever since and now you want to make them bleed more- Mr Rann there is no more blood left but there is plenty of spine left just ask Janet Giles.
Posted by: Andrew of Adelaide 1:36am February 19, 2008
Comment 15 of 15
Well the ALP (Alternative Liberal Party) is at it again, this time its the injured workers turn. Olsen, Brown and Co would have been proud of this assault on the worker. How quickly the ALP forget where they come from! On the other hand Janet Giles you do yourself proud, give these so called true believers hell!
Posted by: BRUCE HULL of Warradale 7:20pm February 18, 2008
Comment 14 of 15
AT LAST ..SOMEONE ON THE INJURED WORKERS SIDE. NOBODY ELSE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT TO WORK BUT ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY A PREVIOUS EMPLOYERS NEGLICENCE AND LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF "RETURN TO WORK, SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT & JOB ROTATION"
Posted by: DETERMINED DISCRIMINEE of 6:02pm February 18, 2008
Comment 13 of 15
Good onya Janet, if you cannot abide by the politically-motivated rules governing Wokrcover, go out and help the poor buggers who are injured, and have no income. The Rann - led Labour Party here in South Oz is getting arrogant, and becoming ignorant to real peoples needs - as did Howards liberals... is it timefor a change of Leadership of the Labour Party? (Well, not for Hamilton-Smith, he may get votes in the next election)
Posted by: Allan Kempster of Clearview 5:29pm February 18, 2008
Comment 12 of 15
confusion on who is running workcover and its board? the plan by the WorkCover board to cut benefits to workers is the same as that put forward by Bussiness SA whose chairman is also on the workcover board. It would be fair to dsay that as Peter Vaughan is on both Bussiness SA and the workcover board that he should also resign from the WorkCover board as it is clearly a conflict of interests for him to be in both positions at the expense of the injured workers. The WorkCover board is made up of Bruce Carter who is a insolvency accountant and as the latest news has it the golden hair boy of the Rann Govt who have him on various boards which must place him also in a conflict of interest position. But its interesting that as WorkCover can not met the Australian insurance guidelines on the operations of a insurance firm and would ahve been insolvent by that organisation that Bruce Carter whom you would expect be an expert in this field should have made the board and the operation of WorkCover bankrupt and placed in a plan of recovery . However Bruce Carter has taken the unfunded liability from 23 million to 884 million in 5 years (not bad for a chairman of the board the govt has made its golden hair boy) It about time the management be turned over to run the Act as it was intended and that means helping the iinjured and not the lawyers, surveillence firms, medical providers, casemanagers, WorkSafe SA and courts that have been placed to hinder the clear cheap operation of the Act anyone especially blind freddy can see that one injured claim from a workers makes income for over 50 people instead of assisting one injuried all the others are paid to hinder, i would like to see how much one paid to an injured worker ratio to how much it costs to pay all the others is. i bet that one dollar to an in jured worker equals 500 dollars to all the others its time the high end of town own up to the fact they have held a gun to the head of the public and that they are incompendent at there jobs and its time they quit to make way for those who can make it work instead of removing the injured workers benefits and conditions.
Posted by: mark moore-mcquillan of 4:46pm February 18, 2008
Comment 11 of 15
This is a real case of kicking people while they are down. Good on you Janet for making a stand, its a pity the rest will not join you. As for those who get hurt at work;make sure that you take ALL your entitled to. As for you Mr Rann, I hope that you never need work cover.
Posted by: Paul of Northern Suburbs 4:04pm February 18, 2008
Comment 10 of 15
As a state goverment worker who has injured himself whilst carrying out is normal work duties in a place that is well know for work injuries beacause of lack of funds towards buying equipment or setting up safe systems of work,(i must admit they are trying to fix that now after safework audits).You ar now trying to kick me in the cuts why i am down because of your inattention to look at workers safety until somethink happens.i am back to my normal pre-injury hours but i will not be going back to my pre-injury employment which i have been doing for many years.it not only affects my work which is all that you are worried about but what i am required to do at home i am sure you wont come over and help
Posted by: ANTHONY BARNETT of o,sullivan beach 2:55pm February 18, 2008
Comment 9 of 15
It would be great if she could now resign as the South Australian Unions secretary.
Posted by: Peter MM of Seaford 2:46pm February 18, 2008
Comment 8 of 15
Well done Janet. Its a pity none of the other ostriches take your lead. They are too busy burying their heads in the sand and making out nothing is wrong with the way Workcover is being managed.
Posted by: Jeff Thompson of Adelaide 2:39pm February 18, 2008
Comment 7 of 15
Instead of cutting injured workers pay-outs, cut the number of board members and make the work based on competency, that would save money. If you have a civil claim for damages, your pay-out isn't reduced because other party is short of funds. Instead of calling him media Mike, why don't we call him Mickey Mouse? because this is surely the deranged workings of a cartoon character's mind?
Posted by: Robert Smissen of Country SA 2:23pm February 18, 2008
Comment 6 of 15
Congratulations to Janet Giles quiting the workcover board. As many workers thought from the start. The out of control unfunded liability was always going to be fixed by hurting the very people it was designed to help. Those people are the injured workers of South Australia. I am yet to see any worker feeling they are financially better off staying on workcover.
Posted by: Ernest McKenna of Sheidow Park 2:11pm February 18, 2008
Comment 5 of 15
It's good to see Janet acting on the integrity of her position as a representative of South Australian workers. Regrettably, the ones who should be resigning from the WorkCover Board, but who won't, are those with the vested interests in aspects of the industry, together with the BusinessSA representative whose only mission seems to be to sink the compo raft that helps to keep injured workers afloat during soul-destroying times that they are out of work and at the mercy of the system. And why do we still not have an Independent Commission Against Corruption to investigate the stench that hangs over WorkCover's $1.5 billion in foreign investments. I'd like to know where that card sits in the house of cards that is the international financial crisis.
Posted by: mike-servethepeople of adelaide 2:05pm February 18, 2008
Comment 4 of 15
What about wee Jimmy Watson also resigning from the WorkCover Board on the ground that he used to be an AMWU official who was allegedly supporting workers rights.
Posted by: kaz kowalski of 1:22pm February 18, 2008
Comment 3 of 15
She's been a member of the board for five years? She is responsible for the situation at hand of a constant blowout in liabilities and all the organisational ills!
Posted by: Ben of Adelaide 1:09pm February 18, 2008
Comment 2 of 15
Perhaps, instead of punishing the victims, the government should be looking at the real reasons for any Workcover cost blowouts, incompetence in Case Manahement and general administration, outsourcing disasters, conflicts of interest by board members, and any number of individual case disasters. Of course basing any decisions on a nebulous figure of "unfunded liability is a bit like deciding if someone is solvent by determining if they can pay their mortgage after their income is cut to zero." Unfunded liability is at best a guess, based on no further income coming into the system, and at worst, a political fantasy figure. Unfunded liability can be dramatically improved by competent staff and management systems, and rewards for return to work.
Posted by: Atli Karl Von Bansch of Aldgate 1:00pm February 18, 2008
Comment 1 of 15
Comments
Heres a thought from left field re this crap attack on the injured.. Employers where over represented on this board and seems to be the only board members who got there thoughts considered...I have a strange feeling here this not just about reeling in WC costs..Its to do with giving in one hand taking away from the other..Like employers have it seems to now accept maternity leave with some sort of payment for this..so to recoop these now NEW costs to companies taking some costs away from there injured is the taking away with the othjer hand???
Posted by: Stiffy of Adelaide 10:49am today
Comment 78 of 78
don't rort it so that it can offer competitive premiums to employers while maintaining legislated levels of care and entitlements for injured workers........Says Ben,,, Well Ben Self insured employers breach maintaining legislated levels already and have been for years what would make this any different under your proposal m8? other than increasing the volume of breaches to now be by all...
Posted by: Gill of Adelaide 10:34am today
Comment 77 of 78
I think you should look more at the employers, if they didnt give us extra work to do in less time than we did before, then you wouldnt have all these people on work cover and i would prefer to work, than be in pain for the rest of my life and i agree with the comment above..THERE IS NO BENEFIT BEING INJURED and it effects you physicologcal as well.
Posted by: work cover victim of 11:30pm February 18, 2008
Comment 76 of 78
You get a strong feeling that it's seen as something of a lucrative gravy train. Posted by: Sayer of Adelaide Very much a gravy train for the doctors, specialists and lawyers
Posted by: Mike of Mid North SA 10:18pm February 18, 2008
Comment 75 of 78
What a load of rubbish ! For 12 months I have been on Work Cover Payments, and at this stage it looks like I will never be able to return to work. During this time, not once has the current agent for Work Cover, Employers Mutual ever had me evaluated for any treatment to try to get me back to work, even for light duties. In this time, I have made all my own arrangements for remedial therapy in an attempt to improve my condition and also to try to improve my quality of life. For the past 12 months my case has been handed to 3 different Case Managers, who obviously never get a chance to get to know their clients needs or requirements before they are either moved along to a different section or leave the industry completely. Maybe just maybe if this area were to be looked into more carefully it would be noted that the INJURED WORKER should not be victimised even more by a cut in payments, but instead look into the area where the problems are manifesting - within the ranks of those who are employed to HELP the injured workers. Work Cover recipients already lose out on their Employer Superannuation contributions, but also have their payments reduced after a certain amount of time. Taking more away from an injured worker is only a very short term solution. The Work Cover act clearly states that NO WORKER SHALL BE DISADVANTAGED, gee Mr Rann I think what you are proposing will certainly go against all that Work Cover originally stood for.
Posted by: Caroline Williams of Sheidow Park 9:33pm February 18, 2008
Comment 74 of 78
I totally echo the comments of Workcover Victim of 10:36am today. Saves me writing the exactly the same thing. I get injured by an employer that couldnt really care less and who received no penalty, get screwed over and over again through a court system by HIH and end up on a disability pension with a 20K payout instead of the 35 years on at atleast 70k per year i earned as a crane driver. Now they are going to cut it further? Make the employer or guilty party pay the full cost. Let us go back to taking private action in court. My employer should have put a lump sum into a trust an i should be existing off the interest, not being supported by the rest of the taxpayers lucky enough not to get injured in this mean and corrupt system.
Posted by: Marc of Adelaide 8:38pm February 18, 2008
Comment 73 of 78
Since workcover is only relevant when one gets injured, it is about time we stop being reactive (employees/employers) and introduce, economically sound and effective prevention programs. You will never stop all injuries, and you wont stop people being people. But you will signifiacnlty reduce injury rates and the severity if workers are consulted and involved in the prevention process, rather than some boffin in an office telling workers how to perform. Employers (and this isespecially so with the Govt) need to realise that prevention is an an investment, and if done well, will easily see a significant return on their investment, via smaller premiums, less injuries, sick days, improved retention and so on.
Posted by: cut workcover to become Co2 neutral!! of 5:53pm February 18, 2008
Comment 72 of 78
No worker goes to work expecting to get injured just as no business can afford to neglect OH&S issues. Why is it that self insured big companies in SA can pay the same compo but not have the huge unfunded liability or atrocious case management that is SA work Cover. Janet Giles has at last recognised her conflict of interest, when will Peter Vaughan from Business SA step aside? The work cover board recommendations were ignored over 12 months ago, now we have another report delayed. The answer is not in cutting workers entitlements or increasing premiums. it is in the case management and organisational structure. Every day of delay is another day of increasing liability blowout - two billion here we come!
Posted by: No Joke of Somerton Park 5:15pm February 18, 2008
Comment 71 of 78
Will our business still have to pay 8.3% levy even though we never made a claim? Posted by: Karen of Adelaide .............................Yes Karen and all whilst companys that are exempt and therefore do not! pay any levie at all get medicare support through script concessions of there injured employee.i suggest levi paying employers need to stop paying levies as there appeares to be no need, ask the cooperates.
Posted by: Daz of Adelaide 3:04pm February 18, 2008
Comment 70 of 78
Merilyn Williams of S.A. ..............YES!! so bloody true... Im trying to read through all these as very close to my situation, the general theme im picking up on is the Injured worker getting shafted and blamed again along with the doctors ...For crying out loud people who are being critical here of the injured workers views you most sprout off about one or 2 cases you hear 3rd hand and tarnish everyone how stupid(now said most not all) The volume of difficulties many injured have been objected to is proof enough this is not there! doing yet the injured being targeted. Just about my entire Life from employment to anything social has been taken away,Its not just about earnings to may of the injured... my employer has spent more to justify there officially!! proven wrong doing's than it would have cost to redeem my employment this also not just about money to them right now itÂżs simply about controlling!! Not being responsible for them.
Posted by: Spider of York Penisular 2:24pm February 18, 2008
Comment 69 of 78
Im a injured worker and Heidi sorry your off the mark a bit there donÂżt put blame on the doctors most do a great job with consultations involving work related injuries taking more than the normal 10/15min' basic consultation hence the higher fees some times..However there is a GREAT expense to tax payers! via Injured workers employed by a Self Insured Exempt Work Cover Employer.. Medication cost is being subsided by Medicare who is picking up the cost for the gap between any PBS charges for medication instead the EXEMPT WC Employer paying full private cost..So here we have mostly Big Business who pays NOT ONE CENT!! Into public work cover being supported by the tax payers. So politician here is a chance to save money stop this routing of EXEMPT employers not paying there way and at the expense of our tax dollars not to mention the INSULT to MANY! Smaller Employers who DO PAY there way with WC Levies...how would they feel knowing they pay a levee Exempt employers donÂżt?.... And do I miss something here about the blow out in administration costs? So what we have Admin' fail again and again so its now back to making the Injured employee take the blame..Mr Michael Wright why did you not release this report prior to the election? And will you try to have it retrospective? My WC Exempt employer has been ALLOWED to get away with stalling everything!... In my case and many others, The Employers hopes are riding on this report being there great escape from responsibilitiesÂż If this to be the case donÂżt for a moment believe most long termed injured workers who have suffered and stuck it out for years being screwed by these rouge exempt employers will just roll over as myself and others will continue not just for ourselves but also those who have conceded to these mongrel rouge Employers .. Many have families to take care of they understand there responsibilities many have been wronged and not just the injured worker suffers in these cases..We hope this report or new legislation acknowledges decent penalties to Exempt employers who do breach there obligation there mutuality in adhering to WC regulations etcÂżFrom my experience its seems rather knowledgeable that exempt employers are a rule to there own with NO Reasonable deterring penalties for breaches.. I Challenge Mr. Wright to respond to injured workers immediate concerns, a response that is deserved after all donÂżt you think they are part of the so-called problem?.. In my opinion Work Cover itself again is NOT the problem itÂżs of course the typical bureaucracy but geez! the BS that self insured Exempt Big Business gets away with being responsible for an injured worker such as things like I have said about passing on there injured workers medication expense to the tax payer and now it seems will even be able to do more to tax payers by eventually DUMPING! ALL there responsibilities via new legislation...
Posted by: Spider of York Penisular 1:58pm February 18, 2008
Comment 68 of 78
Look after the Workers until they get hurt then screw them Rann, next he will suggest take all injured workers out the back and shoot them like injured horses are treated. Yes there are some bludgers, but why should the poor bugga that has been hurt at work get a raw deal. I'm not on work cover and never have been and hope never to be, but would want a fair go if I was. Rann you are a Labor man and Labor was for the working class, no longer it seems
Posted by: Bob the Builder of Adelaide 1:58pm February 18, 2008
Comment 67 of 78
Obviously my comment about colusion hit a nerve eh?.. LOL
Posted by: bobdown of in front of my puter 1:38pm February 18, 2008
Comment 66 of 78
Easy way to fix it - expose WorkCover to competition. Employers must have worker injury insurance, but there should be a choice of insurers. Similar to this, in Queensland you have a choice of insurers to use for CTP on your vehicle. WorkCover will be forced to improve its performance then to make sure that doctors, consultants, etc. don't rort it so that it can offer competitive premiums to employers while maintaining legislated levels of care and entitlements for injured workers.
Posted by: Ben of Adelaide 12:47pm February 18, 2008
Comment 65 of 78
Administrators should be charged with Fraud/Corruption if they are to blame for this. Too many pigs in the trough of money to be had for the administrators, by business paying the required levy. In all this money is not being used correctly to assist the employee, the Administration are trying to save money so they can have further bonuses and payrises. Most Rehab sections provided by the employers are also non productive making the worker continually jump through hoops, having hidden agendas and tell lies at official conferences. The money wasted by these organisations/Employers to disprove the workers claim but most times in the end backfire for the employer. Of course the employer wants to cut liability, they are in this at all cost including taking the soul of the worker in the process, do they care, I think not, as long as their pockets are lined with gold, to hell with everyone else. To the persons who have made comments that people on work cover are bludgers, be very careful at work, make sure nothing happens to YOU.
Posted by: Tony Crowley of Adelaide 12:23pm February 18, 2008
Comment 64 of 78
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE... having been in the "system" for a while now, you get to see the process first hand. every thing is outsoursed to a rehab provider at huge costs per year. Doctors, physios,specialists all take advantage of the system and double their going rates. you get handballed from person to person, report after report after report. it is a joke. if you want to renter the workforce the process stops you, they have to evaluate and re-evaluate to make sure you wont aggrivate or reinjure yourself, you become a lepper..probabely unemployable because of red tape and "if buts and maybes" . Dont cut the entitlements for the injured workers, it does not help with the indignitie of being stuck on the notsomerrygoround. change the process that takes place and give us a fair go it is not our fault.
Posted by: MS of componotsomerrygoround 12:01pm February 18, 2008
Comment 63 of 78
As a large employer it is correct that there would only be a 2-3% of mild claims that sneak through the system as exaggeration. The fear most employers will have if the new legislation comes in is long drawn out common law cases, where there is no rehabilitation, no case managers as there would be no wages paid. Common law would then allow spouses to claim for stress. So we would have to pay two levies, a WorkCover and an Insurance premium.
Posted by: Jason Homa of Beverley 11:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 62 of 78
Never fear workers St Kevin and his disciple Media Mike will save us. The labor party is all for "working familys" so they tell us or doesn't that apply if you get hurt at work and cannot work?
Posted by: grumpy of north of gepps cross 11:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 61 of 78
The huge unfunded liability is a result of poor legislation, the fact it is a "no fault" system, a lack of funding to Safework SA to investigate negligence on the part of both employer and employee, a medical system that is pushed to it's limits thus seeing Workcover patients as cash cows....I could go on and on. Once again it is the "victim" in this crime that will be most punished. I had worked constantly for 26 years before I was injured at work 4 years ago. I suffered a severe back injury which is still unresolved. I have been told surgery "may" help yet no surgeon want's to touch it due to the risk involved. 4 months into the injury I suffered a "psychological" breakdown which required me to be hospitalized in a psychiatric ward. I work in a very high tech field of knowledge and as such was earning an excellent income. My future was very good and as my work history had shown, my income would continue to grow. So now I am left "holding the baby". Being told I like many others are the cause of this massive problem. I don't think so. My life has been turned upside down, inside out, chewed up and spat out. Mr Rann and your fellow "employee's of the people", I think you have forgotten the roots of the Labor party and who it represents. I simply hope no one ever kicks your feet from under you and you find yourselves in the same situation as me.
Posted by: About to be shafted of 11:53am February 18, 2008
Comment 60 of 78
thomas the tank - "prevention is the key u morons!" 'Tis indeed a great shame someone didn't give your mother that advice before it was too late!
Posted by: A small brown dog of dubious pedigree 11:27am February 18, 2008
Comment 59 of 78
Please be advised that the next Public Forum in regard to WorkCover will be held on the 8th March at the Enfield Community Centre starting at 9.30am through to 1pm. Work Injured Resource Connection intends to invite Minister Wright & Treasurer Foley to explain why they have not just mislead Parliament over the last 6 years in regard to the mess that WorkCover is in, but they have mislead every South Australian. Information in regard to the Forum can be obtained at wirc@bold.net.au Many questions need to be asked and answered, Minister Wright needs to face all of us at the Forum instead of seeking the protection of Parliament House. If you are wondering why Treasurer Foley needs to also attend, the answer is simple, WorkCover Corporation is a Public Corporation, and as such Treasurer Foley is responsible for its operation just as much as Minister Wright is. Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson Work Injured Resource Connection
Posted by: Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of 11:18am February 18, 2008
Comment 58 of 78
I was injured at wor a couple of years ago,(broken ribs), and within a week I had the Workcover rehabilitation officer on my doorstep trying to force me back to work, when I could hardly stand up or even breathe. Because I was a contractor at the time, the hire company that I was working for were more worried about their reputation with the employer than my health and welfare. Through the colusion of both employers and Worcover and their doctor, I was forced back to work way to early and the result was that I ended up with a punctured lung. In the ensuing court case I was awarded damages. Knobs!
Posted by: bobdown of in front of my puter 11:16am February 18, 2008
Comment 57 of 78
INQUIRY INTO THE WORKCOVER CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA TERMS OF REFERENCE (adopted 1 November 2007) 1. That pursuant to section 16(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee inquire into and report on the WorkCover Corporation of South Australia (WorkCover), having regard to the extraordinary blow-out in the unfunded liability of WorkCover from $86 million in 2002 to $843 million in 2007, the failure of the Government to properly and adequately monitor and manage the unfunded liability of WorkCover, and the claim by WorkCover in January 2006 that the sole claims manager would achieve necessary liability reduction to deliver a fully funded scheme by 2012-13, with particular regard toÂż- (a) the deteriorating financial position of WorkCover; (b) the effectiveness of outsourcing the claims management to a sole claims manager; (c) the tender process and the probity of that process, leading to the appointment of the sole claims manager; (d) the exposure of WorkCover to the sub-prime financial market; (e) the 2007 actuarial report submitted to the WorkCover Board in September 2007; and (f) any other matters.
Posted by: Anthony redmond of Henley Beach 10:59am February 18, 2008
Comment 56 of 78
I have been on workcover for about 4 years now after a forklift accident at work. My employer applied to have my employment terninated after 12 months, becuse he did not have any suitable alternate work to offer me. Workcover allowed this, and since then I have applied for (and been turned down for) hundreds of jobs. I have had about 8 different case managers and 3 rehab companies (with about 8 different rehab consultants). I have since been told that only about 5% of workers on workcover for more than 3 years return to work. The last thing I could handle now is for workcover to cut my payments (which is 80% of the award rate for the position I held). I am mentally spent. It is bad enough living with stigma of being on workcover, let alone having to worry about whether my payments will be reduced or stopped. I believe workcover should redeem long term recipients fairly, so that money goes to workers rather than continuing paying Doctors, specialists, rehab companies, solicitors and the like.
Posted by: David of Burton 10:51am February 18, 2008
Comment 55 of 78
Having been injured at work a number of years ago and been the recipient of the so called generous Workcover payments I can tell you I am currently approaching $400,000 worse of. I was told by my then employer that they would "Look after me" so I didn't take legal action that was then available. As soon as the act was changed I was whisked off the Workcover system with a pittance and placed on Government benifits. So, until I found suitable work that would not exacerbate my injury, the long suffering taxpayers of Australia were forced to pay for the dereliction of duty my employer was responsible for. Workcover was supposed to be a no fault scheme that replaced the costly litigation of the previous mode of addressing work place injury. Instead a self serving bueacracy has grown up feeding on the plight of the injured workers. Stop workplace accidents and fraudelent claims and improve the effeciency of the system and there would be no need to reduce the compensation payments (THEY ARE NOT BENEFIT PAYMENTS! THERE IS NO BENEFIT IN BEING INJURED)
Posted by: Workcover Victim of 10:36am February 18, 2008
Comment 54 of 78
Some of the blame for huge costs HAS to fall back on the doctors - who as soon as you say "its a workcover claim" their fees almost double - for NO EXTRA consultation!!
Posted by: Heidi of adelaide 10:31am February 18, 2008
Comment 53 of 78
To Whatever of SA, you can find the figures on the WorkCover website http://www.blognow.com.au/workcover/ And it shows the pattern on how the and when the WorkCover Board and the Industrial Minister created this mess. A mess which indicates there is a debt but also an overseas investment portfolio of $1.5 Billion. Employers should also note they have also been mis-lead and should unite with workers to identify these problems and its origins.
Posted by: Peter Hanna of Panorama 10:27am February 18, 2008
Comment 52 of 78
If people think this is workers v employers, then they are complete fools and playing the game the Board wants played out... Wake Up! Small businesses are getting screwed and so are injured workers - to equal measure. If you are an employer whose been shafted, it's too easy to blame the worker even if they have been dishonest. If you are a worker who's been scuttled it's easy to beleive the employer that has been in league with WorkCover is the evil-doer.... The truth opponents of WorkCover want it sunk and sunk fast. Is not Business SA's Board rep working hard to see its collapse? If not, it's a bloody terrible and unfortunate accident - NOT!... Enough other Board members have significant fiscal interests in staying on the gravy train. The only difference is how many small businesses are so expendable as to justify the means the Board is using? The Union Reps have remained obligingly quiet... no so much as a peep from them.... WHY? Yep, GRAVY TRAIN! Without WorkCover's $ how many would really survive? If wars keep economies going, this train is about to go over a cliff very soon... Now what would happen if employers and injured workers joined forces???? Wouldn't that see some serious heads roll?
Posted by: Matthew G of 10:20am February 18, 2008
Comment 51 of 78
its about time the employers who do not provide safe and reasonable workplaces take on the cost of the injured workers for life then we may see them change their poor attitude to workplace health and safety.
Posted by: graham hall of s.a 10:18am February 18, 2008
Comment 50 of 78
It sucks to be injured at work and go through rehabilitation. I know because my wife has gone through the process. However, there is no denying that SA has the most generous schemes in Australia and most of the liability problems with our Workcover scheme are about long term income maintenance, not rehab costs. Why does SA need a substantially more income maintenance than other States. Queensland has the least generous schemes of all Australia and it doesn't seem to be a big issue for employees up there. Or is SA just a socialist paradise?
Posted by: Andrew of Adelaide 10:10am February 18, 2008
Comment 49 of 78
If work cover didnt waste so much money and time doing nothing it wouldnt of reached this state.I have been on work cover for over a year.When I tried to look for work I was told I could by the job network groups no because I was on compensation.When I was cleared for duty work cover gave me a rehab officer,but because I had not been release from work they couldnt find me a job.that took over 14 months.When i asked if I could do a retraining course the said it would cost to much ($600) dollars at the time.(I would of gladly taken a cut in my payout if they would of paid it).I was told it wouldnt get cleared by workcover.Instead they sent me to a psychologist to see what i was capable of doing.(he cost over $800) this meeting lasted just over an hour.So before you people start complaining about the bludgers out there make sure its not them bludging, but because the red tape and crap they have to go through.Work cover are making bludgers because of their lack of action.
Posted by: gezza of 10:10am February 18, 2008
Comment 48 of 78
Having in the past been on the work cover system I had found it the most degrading event, it is the continual visits to medical professionals, and therapists, and the re-habilitation officers that take the bulk of the money.....prevention though is the best saving.
Posted by: Shirley of Port Adelaide 10:09am February 18, 2008
Comment 47 of 78
once again the innocent workers who are at not fault for their injuries are going to get screwed over. In our case, my partner was able to return to work approximately 12 months ago, but not to his original position yet his workplace has only just managed to find him position (in january), which we were told he wasnt able to be placed in originally as the position is only for those with physical injuries not psychological injuries, in that time he has had his pay cut, made to feel like a criminal (even though there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident - everyone involved have continously pointed that out to us). We now understand why one of his doctors said the process for the claim is worse then the initial injury.
Posted by: mary of 10:03am February 18, 2008
Comment 46 of 78
It will only take one successful legal suit against an employer to pull that house of cards down. Clearly if compensation is to be cut, employers are going to be underinsured and therefore personally liable for the remained. Common law was abolished, but only with the presumption that compensation would always be adequate to properly care for the injured party. We know it has not done so in decades. A test case will certainly have many employers up in arms, as it should since their own representatives are pushing for it.
Posted by: Matthew G of 10:03am February 18, 2008
Comment 45 of 78
Hey Whatever, i think u r way off the mark. My old man is on workcover and will never work again due to being assaulted by a patient at the RAH. What appeared to be a collapsed disc into the spinal cord has now become a heart condition and intense pain for the majority of the day. Workcover have repeatedly tried to force him to work when they know full well he cant and have had doctors provide evidence but yet they continue to try and find ways to save money and cause the people they r meant to support more pain emotionally. Not all people on Workcover r bludgers Whatever.
Posted by: Pricey of Para Hills West 9:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 44 of 78
Having a look at the the cause (court) list each day and you will find there are more disputes in Consiliation and Arbitration than the other courts all put together. 98% are in the the workers favor. This tells me that this has never been a system it was intended for but an "insurance" environement. The current system was ok until the Administrators took control. Blame the workers and I assure you thre will be rolling strikes as this will effect not only current workers but most of you reading this comment.
Posted by: Jim Bennett of Croydon 9:49am February 18, 2008
Comment 43 of 78
it is little wonder that the WorkCover SA has a liability. The management and board have opted for high risk get rich investments and having 1.5 billion dollars invested in the high risk areas like sub-prime USA markets, only holds a gun to the heads of all South Australians when it fails. The fact is that WorkCover is a private company which has a charter to administer a SA govt Act. thus they have the benefits of a private company and public company. The board have said to the govt we need to make money for our shareholder and if you do not do as we have asked we will do nothing and yes that is the manipulation that WorkCover has done to all South Australain to the tune of 884 million (soon to be 1 billion dollars) . If it was a private company it would have failed and be placed in bankruptcy but as it has a hold on a public company these rules have been waived. The one main thing that is at the centre of this is that the WorkCover corp have not complied with the rules and regulation set by govt and now wants the govt to reward them for their failure. But the injured worker is the true victim as no matter what the govt or workcover do the injured are still injured suffering and being left to defend for themselves while the system that is there to assist them is more interested in making money and profits than to perform the job they were given the charter to administer. a fair go for all but the workcover system is in need of commonsense and less lawyers managers and corporate hopefuls.
Posted by: mark moore-mcquillan of 9:44am February 18, 2008
Comment 42 of 78
Excuse me Whatever of SA, do actually have any facts to back up your claim, or do you just enjoy coming to a public forum and shooting off your mouth,which makes you look like you a complete loser.
Posted by: Forum Troll of Right Here Right Now 9:38am February 18, 2008
Comment 41 of 78
Sack the board Rann, or are you in bed with them
Posted by: Steve of Roxby 9:36am February 18, 2008
Comment 40 of 78
Work cover needs reform, but as usual the worker gets blamed for the majority of the blow out in the costs, what should be look at and changed is the extremely high legal fees being charged on both sides The delay tactic of the work cover lawyers to drag the case out and the exorbitant fees charge by all the so called consultants who advise , how many injured people on work cover do you see driving an Mercedes or BMW car, yet nearly all the lawyers and consultants do.
Posted by: Warren Savage of 9:33am February 18, 2008
Comment 39 of 78
prevention is the key u morons!
Posted by: thomas the tank of tidmouth station 9:33am February 18, 2008
Comment 38 of 78
It's a bludgers paradise and the people who are genuine as per usual get the raw deal ! I wonder how much the labor mob sucks out of it ?
Posted by: Drecked of Nappy Valley 9:28am February 18, 2008
Comment 37 of 78
WorkCover Payouts story The Advertiser 18/02/2008 Outsourcing has failed - thatÂżs easy to understand, administration costs blown out by $75 million Âż canÂżt be difficult to see why, high turn over of claims managers Âż that should be easy to figure out, Âżconspicuous deterioration in the corporationÂżs financial performance and level of service to injured workersÂż Âż was it greed or stupidity that made them chase poor or high risk investments with SA employers levies, ultimately leading to reduced services to injured workers. ÂżInjured workers not returning to work soon enoughÂż clearly all the injured workers in the State are liars and cheats and all the health care professionals that treat them are either liars and cheats or just plain gullible. Even though Âżclaims have fallen by 13,000 between 1995 and 2007Âż the WorkCover system in this State canÂżt make a go of it when other States can. ItÂżs clear, the answer to this problem is easy and simple Âż cut injured workers benefits. IÂżve an idea to reduce WorkCoverÂżs financial problems, close it down and wind it up. Move injured workers to the Social Security system. ThatÂżs where a lot end up after a considerable fight for their rights, along the way they lose their friends, family, self respect and physical and mental health. IÂżm sorry, I forgot, we canÂżt close WorkCover down, who is going to employ all the lawyers, court staff, Claims Agents, WorkCover bureaucrats, private detectives, job search consultants, psychologists, psychiatrists, GPÂżs and physiotherapists. Added to the list on the edges are the luxury car dealers, restaurants, high end house renovators etc etc, and lets not forget a Minister will lose a portfolio. If reducing injured workers benefits is the only way that the people in charge can see to resolve the problems, then surely their state of mental health is in need of assessment, or is there too much money being made on the back of injured workers.
Posted by: Ian Trinne of Semaphore 9:27am February 18, 2008
Comment 36 of 78
The first thing to do is get rid of Workcover, it has to be cheaper for the bosses to pay sick workers then to pay the wages of the Workcover bosses and Government who have thier noses in the trough at Workcover. Why is the injured worker being penalised, the quicker we get rid of Rann and the Labor party the better, thought Labor was for the worker, guess I was wrong and where is the Unions in this, come on Unions, call a state strike on this.
Posted by: george of # 9:11am February 18, 2008
Comment 35 of 78
There are not enough rehabilitation opportunities within the State Public Service. I have work related injuries that prevent me from doing my regular position properly. I asked for rehabilitation, training and assistance to find a more suitable position within the state public service only to be told that these things dont exist. As per the article the reality is a high turnover of claims managers and "conspicuous deterioration" the level of service to injured workers.
Posted by: State Pubic Servant of Adelaide 9:01am February 18, 2008
Comment 34 of 78
And the "working families" will be the ones who suffer......
Posted by: TheMan of The Office 9:00am February 18, 2008
Comment 33 of 78
If, as the article suggests, Mr Rann sat on this all last year because of the federal election, shouldn't he be investigated for corruption? To avoid reducing WorkCover's losses for politcal purposes isdidgy isn't it? Or is that just what we expect from him.
Posted by: Warren Driver of Elizabeth 9:00am February 18, 2008
Comment 32 of 78
Will our business still have to pay 8.3% levy even though we never made a claim?
Posted by: Karen of Adelaide 9:00am February 18, 2008
Comment 31 of 78
I wonder if 'Tired of Political Correctness' has any appreciation of the physical and psychological pain people who suffer serious injuries at work endure. Narrow minded comments such as theirs do not help. Perhaps 'TOPC' would like to walk in another person's shoes for a day, imagine suffering a serious back injury, in constant chronic pain, reliant on the srongest pain killers available to get through day and observe their world crumbling around them - career, family, independence, self esteem, friends, being driven into depressed isolation.... A major issue facing injured workers is that of feeling like second class citizens, dependent upon income maintenance - it is a demeaning process. Labelling them as 'bludgers' will only serve to drive genuine claimants into hiding, making it all the more difficult for them to return to work for fear of being criticised and labelled in this manner. For injured workers to reconnect with communities and reintegrate into a work environment they require support, understanding and encouragement. Don't forget they also need money to live and support their families in the process, rent, mortgages, bills and food don't magically disappear just because of injury. It is a sad fact of life that there are people who will rort any system thay can gain benefit from, whether that be worker's compensation or otherwise - the key is in learning to recognise those who do so without placing an unfair disadvantage upon those who are genuine.
Posted by: Stephen Carter of 8:59am February 18, 2008
Comment 30 of 78
If you work for DECS do not have a workcover claim. I suffered a broken ankle after some on ground staff shifted planter boxes into a walkway. Firstly the intimidation to use sickleave, the pressure placed by the principal including being told it will reflect in my references for the next school. Also not being allowed to return to work on crutches "for OH&S reasons",The paperwork and the medical expenses are huge. The orthopedic surgeon said it was simply a case of placing the fee at a level that will compensate for 12 months to be paid and only a 70% chance of that. The biggest cost is the lack of honesty and the inefficiency.
Posted by: adam of greenwith 8:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 29 of 78
Whatever of SA, yes there are bludgers, but as someone who works in the system I can tell you a hell of alot of those cases are genuine, and they are treated like criminals by WorkCover and some of thei employers who seem to have little sympathy for work injuries.
Posted by: Tom Michaels of West Lakes 8:57am February 18, 2008
Comment 28 of 78
Having been on Workcover for a while, all I can say is don't pick on the innocent workers, why not attack the higher consult charges that the specialists in "The Boys Club" charge Workcover, the referals to their "mates" ........ it's the medical profession who are pillaging Workcover NOT the worker, curb these expenses and you won't have to add extra stress and suffering to the already injured workers. But we know it's easier to go after the weaker of the two, typical gutless government.
Posted by: Peter of She'll be right. 8:42am February 18, 2008
Comment 27 of 78
I think out of 100 cases, only 2 or 3 would be genuine - the bludgers have caused this.
Posted by: Whatever of SA 8:39am February 18, 2008
Comment 26 of 78
I think is time Workcover looked into employers who don't pay the correct levy. My working career (often as a temp) has seen many instances of this.
Posted by: frannie of Fullarton 8:36am February 18, 2008
Comment 25 of 78
The blame game. Why are injured workers losing their entitlements because South Australia has the only underperforming Workers Compensation scheme in the Country? If this was the private sector the razor gang would be cutting costs from the top down not the bottom up. I wonder how an injured worker and his family is supposed to survive for years on end while they wait for their wages disputes to be resolved quoting "ceasing maintenance until disputes were resolved with any arrears paid to the worker " clearly the injured workers will not have any financial resources to fight back if the board has its way. They will simply join the ranks of the oppressed majority. By the way has anyone looked at replacing the board and the management?
Posted by: Jeff Thompson of Adelaide 8:25am February 18, 2008
Comment 24 of 78
This is sad news for the genuine cases. It's about time the government started looking at some of the doctors who making the judgements on workcover cases. You know what they say "In for a penny in for a pound"
Posted by: Adelaide of Adelaide 8:11am February 18, 2008
Comment 23 of 78
Welcome to third world conditions.This is the price the average mug has to pay for being led up the garden path by government and trade unions.Remember the smarties who wanted to negotiate their own wages and conditions?What now?The average person in South Australia lives in fear of losing his job and more of falling out with the coterie of cronies who dominate each workplace.All this while our government fritters away taxpayers funds on huge defence contracts and tries their best with ongoing sporting events to keep the public entertained.
Posted by: Fred of Flinders Ranges 8:10am February 18, 2008
Comment 22 of 78
...or maybe the Compo bludgers could just go back to work?
Posted by: Tired of Political Correctness 7:42am February 18, 2008
Comment 21 of 78
So those who are genuinely injured at work are going to have to suffer. No payments after 2 years. Too bad about the family and the mortgage. I thought the Labor govt looked after the workers. It stinks. Prevent injuries happening in the first place and weed out the bludgers.
Posted by: john of unley 7:41am February 18, 2008
Comment 20 of 78
Andrew - an awful lot of sense in what you say mate. It's no use pulling people out of the water at the end of the river - we need to be saving them from falling in in the first place. But you know something - the philosophy in this article is the same as in the health service. Crazy stuff.
Posted by: stevie of brighton 7:39am February 18, 2008
Comment 19 of 78
well i wish id voted liberal now. I still think a better solution would be to cut the politicians pay packets. as long as the workers are looked after and are given every opportunity to get back to work faster than thats fair. but i couldnt think of anything worse that working your butt off and giving your time to a company only to get injured while making money for your bosses than to get nothing back when you are down. i think looking after the workers are the main priority.
Posted by: JODIE of 7:38am February 18, 2008
Comment 18 of 78
I remember the politician who tried to ride a bike in the park at lunch time and fell off of it. He got more than is paid out today for a truck driver killed on the job. The fat pensions we pay out for politicians is far to much, and we should reduce that as well as put a freeze on MP wage packets. As Andrew stated before me, put some effort into preventing injuries. The private police force used to spy on the injured is what the real expense is about for Workcover.
Posted by: Maxa of Elizabeth 7:34am February 18, 2008
Comment 17 of 78
The best solution would be working out who's scamming and who's not. There IS a difference between injuring yourself because of your working environment and injuring yourself at work doing something dumb. Or even injuring yourself the night before and making it work to have 'the accident'. In our industry we see people claiming compensation and clearly bragging about it (last week: the man who was on worker's compo for a bad back, yet single-handedly managed to lay a whole backyard of pavers IN HIS INVESTMENT PROPERTY!!) And who's paying for that? Rorting is the problem. Keep the system honest, pay genuinely injured people properly and weed out the scammers.
Posted by: Whinging Pom of Utopia 7:33am February 18, 2008
Comment 16 of 78
I agree with Andrew, unfortunately I don't think WorkCover's main focus is preventing injury, nor rehabilitating those who have been injured, if that was the case instead of focusing on worker's and employers, they should concentrate on the rehabilitation aspect of getting those who have been injured back to work - and given the fact that WorkCover plans to cut down on the rehabilitation providers providing rehabilitation to workers and giving the rehabilitation work to several larger rehabilitation companies which do not have good return to work rates, then it looks like WorkCover will continue to run itself into the ground. What needs to be done is a "flushing out" of those on the WorkCover board who have continually failed to fix this problem and continue to sit on longterm claims. We need new blood and fresh ideas, people who arent so negligent and unfocused on fixing this drastic problem. Compulsory OHS systems may help part of the problem, but there are also psychological problems to deal with such as workplace depression, and bullying which lead to psychological injuries.
Posted by: BJ of Grange 7:29am February 18, 2008
Comment 15 of 78
I think a better solution would be to put energy into preventing workplace injury in the first place. Have compulsory OHS systems in place with business registration, payroll tax cuts and other incentives for good safety practice. Have a workplace injury or death toll like the road toll. Cutting entitlements to injured workers isn't the answer, preventing people getting hurt is.
Posted by: Andrew of 6:56am February 18, 2008
Comment 14 of 78
Amazing! Once again hit the people that can least afford it. Employers are in no hurry to find permanent suitable work when you are willing to work. I can very much understand why people dont want to hurry back to work with an injury, but once again it looks like the ones doing the right thing will be hit again.
Posted by: concerned of 6:13am February 18, 2008
Comment 13 of 78
So the system was ruined by the Administrators, so the future injured workers lose their rights. Do the Administrators get charged for fraud or corruption for mal-practise?
Posted by: sam bass of Adelaide 5:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 12 of 78
So the system was ruined by the Administrators, so the future injured workers lose their rights. Do the Administrators get charged for corruption?
Posted by: sam bass of Adelaide 5:52am February 18, 2008
Comment 11 of 78
I have been on workcover for 4 years now and have found the whole process to be a nightmare. It's a big merry go round that is so hard to get off and I have spoken with many people that have been on or are on the system and they all say the same thing. I personally want to get off the system but I am finding it extremely difficult. I feel that the whole process does more harm than good in the way it is all handled and find that many people end up with physological and emotional disorders from the scheme. Talk to the people that are on Workcover and I'm sure that the debt could be reduced by just listening to what they have to say.
Posted by: Anon of 5:47am February 18, 2008
Comment 10 of 78
As a person who works in the industry I can tell you the major problems in all this is the corrupt WorkCover board some of whom have conflicts of interest in owning their own rehabilitation companies and profiteering off of injured workers meanwhile not achieving the return to work rates. Also there is the WorkCover claims agent Employers Mutual Limited which for 2 years now has failed dismissly in doing its job, employing inexperienced and neglectful claims managers, whose middle management also refers rehabilitation cases to the WorkCover board members (one of which is romanticly involved with a Labor backbencher as reported in The Advertiser) who's companies have record failures in return to work rates. Its quite evident the problem isnt with workers, its with WorkCover and its Claims Agent who have been negligent with the system and need to be fired and replaced with new people who really do care about getting injured workers back to work not just lining their pockets with more money and enhancing their own companies profits.
Posted by: Tom Micheals of West Lakes 5:23am February 18, 2008
Comment 9 of 78
Here we are again - Outsourcing - What is happening to The Public Service? is it so cluttered with itself that it cannot do the job? When Don Dunstan was Premier there were only 8500 public servants and 9 Ministers including himself. One would expect that privatisation and outsourcing especially would have reduced the numbers, which it should have, but there are 100,000 public servants with over 1,200 being paid over $100 grand a year.
Posted by: Robert Stewart of Lameroo 4:54am February 18, 2008
Comment 8 of 78
Instead of very exspensive ads, the money should be going to those that are injured at the workplace. Some of the people working at Work Cover should brush up on their people skills and stop trying to push people into doing jobs that the doctors have told their injured clients they will never be able to do again. In some cases their mental health is suffering due to their inability to fully recover that also needs to be taken into consideration.
Posted by: Merilyn Williams of S.A. 4:38am February 18, 2008
Comment 7 of 78
Why does this not surprise me,,,this is not about getting people back to work this is about savng money we are NOT stupid!
Posted by: Evie of Puerto Rico 2:17am February 18, 2008
Comment 6 of 78
Is'nt the SA government now spending a fortune taxpayers money promoting backwater Adelaide as the next boom city like Perth is, not much of a boom city if it can't even afford to look after its injured workers
Posted by: Ben boy of 1:55am February 18, 2008
Comment 5 of 78
l guess the money for those politican pay rises they seem to vote themselves every few months and the million buck super payouts they get when they retire at 45 has to come from somewhere.
Posted by: Jim of Victoria of 1:51am February 18, 2008
Comment 4 of 78
The WorkCover board had proposed cuts to workers' entitlements such as reducing weekly income maintenance payments, capping entitlements to medical expenses, limiting solicitors' capacity to charge injured workers<> And again the worker gets shafted, how about removing the adversial nature of it all. that alone would lower the liability by at least half. Limiting what the medical people can charge would also go a long way. Because as soon as workcover is mentioned their charges triple, so instead it costing $60 a visit its now $180 the delivery of service doesnt change but the cost does. That is what I experienced when I was on workcover. <ceasing maintenance until disputes were resolved with any arrears paid to the worker> How is the worker meant to be able to live and pay their bills, Centrelink wont come to the party, and most disputes take at least 10 to 12 weeks to be resolved.
Posted by: Mike of Mid North SA 1:23am February 18, 2008
Comment 3 of 78
I tore a calf muscle at work. An Intensive, continual physiotherapy plan was formulated but a succession of doctors advised that it woudn't speed healing so I didn't undergo it, thereby saving over $1000 in compensation medical bills. How many unnecessary noses are there in the compo trough? You get a strong feeling that it's seen as something of a lucrative gravy train.
Posted by: Sayer of Adelaide 12:52am February 18, 2008
Comment 2 of 78
(in a false seto voice),The car salesman gets results.
Posted by: A.Britten of Adelaide 11:58pm February 17, 2008
Comment 1 of 78
First the bikies now workcover mate you must have really big ones or you are really stupid haven't you seen what happens to politicians overseas who over step the mark. its only a matter of time before it happens here..... Maybe you should pull your head out of your bum and have a reality check theres so many people on workcover hurting what are we all ripping off the system? employers can do what ever they want with no recourse i bet you if you rang my boss he would still be laughing how he got rid of me!
anyway keep up the good work you got my vote (not)
I have noticed that an employee of Minter Ellison is on WorkCover and was listed on the cause list (21/02/08). Pretty good when WorkCover Agents are on and in the system.
WorkCover has a duty to protect injured workers. Their safety and wellbeing should be of paramount importance.
If they looked after their staff so well how come they have such a high staff turnover?
Perhaps its time for a rethink of how everything is being managed?
What a load of rubbish. when you take a case managers job you would full well know that if you mess with peoples lifes people will get upset you cant have everything your own way. what about the phone calls i get were there are 2 or 3 peolple from eml on speaker phone intimidating me or the phone calls were no one talks they just listen to see if i answer so they know if im home or not. or maybe my case manager holding me for ransom for my 58b telling me if i dont get myself cleared i wont get it!
I would be thankful people can get on here and vent there anger if you dont like some of these comments then maybe your in the wrong job!!!.
maybe some of us injured workers should make complaints to the police about you guys at least we have your contact details.......
I have also been abused by the system, I was that abused I tried to have no contact with my case manager/rehabilitation but they just pressured me. Phone calls at night, Intimidating and threatening letters and just been made a fool off. The fear your livelyhood is in there hands all the time seems to think they have CONTROL.
To Ms Martin, your fellow employees are playing dice with peoples lives and their families. This is just another case of thinking YOU the good and we are the evil. Sorry to dissapoint you, get another job.
Since WorkCover have declared they have been reading these comments, I can only assume Wayne Potter gets a read and I am still waiting if the "Wayne Potter Case managers manual" is FULLY alligned with the current act?
It states in the manual chapter one, that the manual does not replace the Act 1986 and referance must always be made to the Act.
Why is this manual used?
Does the number of cases at Riverside each day reflect the manual is not alligned?
Could your manual be causing such confusion as I have been stated by my case manager actions that is not in the Act?
RECENT calls for wide-ranging cuts to workers' entitlements to rein in Work-Cover's unfunded liability are self-serving and detract from the real issues underpinning the state's beleaguered workers' compensation scheme.
One of these is the outsourcing by WorkCover of its claims management responsibilities to the private sector. Changes to legislation in 1994, driven largely by ideological considerations, paved the way for WorkCover to outsource its core business.
At the time, many politicians and business leaders argued that an injection of private sector expertise was the solution to the problems. Outsourcing, we were told, would reduce WorkCover's administration costs, provide greater choice for employers, improve service delivery and lift the scheme's performance.
From 1995, claims management was farmed out to nine insurance companies, then five, then four and, since 2006, one claims agent.
So, has outsourcing delivered on the promises made by its advocates? No. The much-vaunted benefits of outsourcing have simply failed to materialise.
In 1994, before outsourcing, the cost of administering the WorkCover scheme was $49.7million. Outsourcing was supposed to save up to 15 per cent a year. This was never met. In fact, there were never any savings, even though the number of WorkCover claims fell from 39,500 in 1995 to 22,020 in 2007.
Instead, there was a blow-out in administration costs. By 2007, employers, after adjusting for inflation, had paid an extra $75 million in administration costs - in effect, an "outsourcing loading" of more than 10 per cent a year.
The promise of employer choice was also an illusion. Before 2006, on average each year less than 1 per cent of employers changed claims agents, and since then, of course, any semblance of employer choice has disappeared altogether.
Service to injured workers has been another area of concern. This has been especially so for those whose injuries make an early return to work unlikely or more difficult.
Claims agents have all too often regarded employers as the "customer" and workers as "claims". Consequently, any commitment to help injured workers return to work has tended to fluctuate between indifference and aggressive claims management.
An incredibly high turnover of claims managers, estimated at more than 20 per cent hasn't helped.
Finally, though not surprisingly, the been a conspicuous deterioration in WorkCover's financial performance.
Before outsourcing in 1995, the avera premium rate for employers was 2.84 per cent of payroll and the scheme had a funding ratio of 70.7 per cent. By 2007, the average premium increased to 3 per cent and the funding ratio
fallen to 64.7 per cent - even though workers' entitlements were greater then than now.
The obvious solution is that Workcover's (claims management functions should be brought back in-house. This option now to be seriously explored, especially as the
scheme's claims liability has increased by more than $300 million since 2006.
The outsourcing fiasco is by no means the only example of the scheme's poor management, and slashing entitlements to injured workers or raising premiums paid by employers is not the way forward.
What is required is an overhaul of the way in which WorkCover is managed.
Dr Kevin Purse is a Research Fellow with the Hawke Research Institute at the University of South Australia and a former WorkCover Board Member.
It seems that there have been a number of suggestions put forward on " how to fix WorkCover ".
Perhaps it might be suggested to the board members and Bruce Carter that he should concentrate on managing Workcover instead of becoming involved in individual workers claims( the scheme critical list).
The other more serious problem is there is no direction in any claims management.
How can a corporation managing injured workers claims be helping them one day and prosecuting them the next or trying to reduce their wages.
This in itself is causing a distrust of the system by injured workers who the system was originally legislated to help.
This problem has been caused by internal management and the board.
There is but one remedy.
Reform Workcover.
Sack the board and its management.
Out with the old and in with the new. A clean sweep is what is needed.
Posted by D. Smith of Kensington at 5:26 PM, 23/2/2008
I have to totally agree with the above comment. The problem is a forward debt and mis-management by the Board, Ministers etc....
The question is will these people do the right thing by so many innocent injured workers and admit they were wrong and quit, and give the positions to people who can start not only to worry about debt, but the total operation.
I am unsure if the back to work advertisements are being aired but all it was showing was the ignorance of the people in charge.
I have just read some of the case managers manual as its on the WorkCover web site. It states in part of occupational health and safety, where drinking alcohol or taking drugs is dangerous.
Most injured workers and I think I can be correct in stating an above term and concentrate on the "critical list" are on some pretty high dosage of medications, this is not a perfect world and unfortunately there are some terrible workplace accidents so back to work sooner could not be legally the right thing to do.
The reason the WorkCover Board are giving is that there is a high unfunded liability which is due to the long term claimants. The other reason is to bring us back in line with the other states, but the civil/common law never gets a mention which is allowable in their system.
Back to work and rehab. The problem is with Workcover and EML.
I was in the WorkCover building last week and was standing waiting my turn at the counter.
A young lad (about 18) was asking how he could get help. His mother was also complaining.
The problems were
The young lad had been off work for 6 weeks.
He had not been paid.
His claim had not been accepted.
He had paid all of his savings in medical fees.
His medical specialists would no longer treat him unless he could pay and refused to see him as a public patient.
His case manager had told him that there was nothing they could do as it was his employers problem and they shoudl pay him and organise rehabilitation.
He lived in a country area. His mother had taken time off work that day to drive him into town to WorkCover to see if they could get some action. The young lad although he had a licence could clearly not drive because of his obviously injured and disabled arm.
He was keen to get some physiotherapy and treatment as his injury was severe and it was likely to be a long term claim.
The bells were ringing to me..Here is a typical case. No rehab, no help, no pay, and he was obviously not going to go back to work in a hurry with the assistance of WorkCover or his employer.
The helpful attendant at the counter was able to tell him that "he should not come without making an appointment and that it was unlikely he would get an appointment today and for him to telephone and make an appointment.(so his mother could obviously take another day off work-and only to be told when they attended at the appointment that obviously they had their times and dates mixed up and the appointment was yesterday and they would have to make another appointment with the earliest now in 10 days time.)
Having heard this all too familiar situation I was able to offer some assistance.
1) Lodge an application for expedited decision in the tribunal today.
2) go to SA unions and tell them your situation and ask for legal help.
3) go to St Vincent de pauls for some food and vouchers.
4) go to social security because he would have more guarantee of getting a payment from them than WorkCover within a month.
5) Not to worry about trying to work out how it is that he had been off work six weeks and WorkCover were still promoting all this stuff about return to work sooner and yet had done little to progress his case.
Minister Wright, can you please open your eyes on this WorkCover situation. I have been attending Injured worker forums (which you decline to attend) for the last 3-4 years and the stories were told of the mis-management way back then. Why have you not acted and just let WorkCover give you such a bad name?
Posted by Who is accountable? at 8:09 AM, 24/2/2008
Invited speakers include
Minister Michael Wright
Treasurer Kevin Foley
Shadow Minister Dr Duncan McFetridge
Shadow Treasurer Martin Hamilton-Smith
Dr Kevin Purse
Mr Allan Clayton
SA Unions
Sunday Mail February 24, 2008
WorkCover cuts backlash fears
Little public support for move
BRAD CROUCH
Any move by the State Government to cut injured workers' entitlements faces a public backlash with an independent survey showing strong community backing to maintain support for injured workers.
A report into WorkCover by financial expert Alan Clayton is now before Cabinet and there is widespread speculation it will result in cutting benefits to reduce WorkCover's ballooning liabilities.
Liabilities now stand at $849 million and could reach $1 billion by the end of the year.
Last year, in a split decision, the WorkCover board recommended cutting benefits, which prompted the Clayton report.
Labor sources have indicated legislation to cut benefits may be hurried through Parliament to minimise political damage.
SA Unions has warned it may mount a political campaign against the Labor Government on the issue.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles - who resigned from the WorkCover board this week in protest over the planned cuts
said the Government would alienate voters if it caved in to business pressure to slash the WorkCover scheme.
Ms Giles pointed to a survey as evidence two out of three South Australians did not sup-port cuts to workers' entitlements.
The McGregor Tan Household omnibus survey of 400 adults for February 2008, asked: "There has been public debate about WorkCover's performance and efficiency. Would you support cuts to injured workers' entitlements in order to reduce the cost of the scheme and the cost to employers?"
Overall, 65 per cent of respondents said they did not support cuts to entitlements.
Another 20 per cent said they didn't know and 15 per cent said they did support cuts to entitlements. The survey revealed the age group most strongly against cuts was 44 to 54 years, with more than three-quarters opposed to reducing worker entitlements.
McGregor Tan commented that "somewhat surprisingly those on higher incomes and professionals are also strongly against cuts to workers' entitlements."
Ms Giles said South Australians want a fair deal for injured workers.
"We are heartened by the public's strong support for injured workers," she said.
"There is widespread recognition that injured workers should not be further harmed by cuts to entitlements in order to satisfy the profit demands of the business lobby.
"Workers need support to rehabilitate and safely return to work and be productive again.
"It's apparent that people recognise slashing entitlements slows that process and ends up costing us more as a society."
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith warned against any move to rush through legislation.
"I am waiting to see the report and we are expecting it this week but until we see it and the legislation we won't know what we are dealing with," he said.
"It should never have come to this point the scheme should have been properly managed.
"We need to see the report and the legislation, and consider them carefully before we make any decisions on whether to support it."
Having a farming background I think that there is a distinct similarity between WorkCover and feeding my pigs.
Once the pigs get a smell of food they stick their heads in the trough and will not move until all the foods gone.
Seems that many involved with WorkCover could be likened by many to be like my pigs at the trough.
They are all draining money out of employers and injured workers and obviously will not stop until every cent has been drained.
After hearing every excuse from the board and the management that things are going to get better nothing has changed, they are still plunging their snouts in to reform the system so they can drain more money.
Every employer pays dearly to finance the pay packets of the Board, WorkCover employees and EML and their lawyers and the doctors and the rehabbers and everyone else tied in with the system.
Even injured workers are getting leeched for money to pay their lawyers bills, they are never reimbursed fully for all of their losses and clearly its a lose, lose situation for employers and employees.
But the pigs at the trough are still smiling and grunting, cause the money is still coming in..
Reform WorkCover
It needs a new board and management. Not cuts to the rights of injured workers.
Badly injured workers are no longer looked after under WorkCover, a former judge of the Accident Compensation Tribunal, Mr Paul Mulvany, said today.
He told a Law Institute conference today (EDITORS: 16 SEPTEMBER) that over the last 18 months it has become clear that new rules introduced in 1997 have effectively cut these accident victims out of the system.
The rules, based on out of date American doctors' guidelines, are used by WorkCover to decide how much is paid to compensate injuries that will affect workers for the rest of their lives.
"In fact this is a sleight of hand perpetrated on every working Victorian," said Mr Mulvany. "The simple fact is that people with the vast bulk of permanent injuries, that most Victorians would view as significant, receive no compensation whatsoever."
Mr Mulvany, a partner with Slater and Gordon, said workers with badly injured backs, for instance, are out of the running unless they are totally bedridden. "Anyone else has to make do or go on social security benefits."
"I understand that a number of medical Colleges, medical panellists and impairment assessment trainers are profoundly disturbed by the inequity and injustice of the scheme, " he said. "I believe that they have made representations to the Victorian WorkCover Authority, which have effectively fallen upon deaf ears.
"It is difficult to conceive that the WorkCover Authority was not aware of this effect when it proposed the scheme in 1997. If it was not, it constitutes monumental ineptitude. If it was aware of the effect it raises the very serious question as to why both it (a public authority) and its Minister repeatedly stated that the impairment scheme was an improvement for Victorian workers."
Addressing a litigation lawyers' conference in Melbourne, Mr Mulvany said that a person with a significant back injury and who had unsuccessful spinal surgery would be entitled to $5000, compared with at least $40,000 under the old scheme. And a worker with a knee injury with a 15 per cent loss of what is called industrial usefulness would not be entitled to any compensation.
WorkCover's impairment
For many the NSW WorkCover system neither works nor covers. Michael Atkin reports.
Sitting in his lounge chair at 11am on a Monday morning isn’t a one off luxury for Abdullah Badawi.* He sits here most days. From inside his Quakers Hill home, in Sydney’s South West Abdullah hasn’t worked since being injured in 2003.
Abdullah was working at an outdoor table next to an electric grinder when another worker turned on the switch. The grinder instantly came alive and began to jerk violently towards him. He turned and ran.
The blade, which is designed to cut through sandstone, caught up with him and slashed down the back of his right leg, cutting it savagely at the calf. He fell to the ground under the impact, injuring his back. Somehow he managed to stand up and hopped on one leg before work mates arrived to rush him to hospital. He passed out in the back seat of the car on the way.
Reflecting on the shocking scene two years later, Abdullah shifts awkwardly in his seat. He asks not to have his real name published out of fear it may affect his compensation case and describes his shame at being unable to work because of the injury. At just 40 years of age he says he wants to be working. He is proud of his ability as a stonemason. Just months before the injury he had been headhunted for the Sydney job.
Convincing his wife and three young children to leave Lebanon had not been easy, but he won them over with the promise of a better life, he says. After all, Abdullah had been to Australia on holiday and knew life here was good. His wife and children arrived in Australia a fortnight after the accident. Not knowing what had happened because Abdullah had not worked up the courage to tell them. Ever since he has been languishing in the workers compensation system and adjusting to his new life has not been easy.
“It’s like my dreams are shattered. To get away from war torn Lebanon for a new life in Australia for my family. It hasn’t worked out. I guess we were not lucky,” he says.
After three attempts at reconstructive surgery his specialist has discharged him saying there is no more he can do. This leaves Abdullah barely able to walk and then only with the aid of a walking stick. His GP has advised him not to walk up more than three or four steps at one time. He is having psychological counseling to help him cope, but he finds it hard when his children ask him to wear long pants so no one can see his wound. And he hates being unable to do the things he used to, like play basketball with his son.
“I am not a person to show pain or play the victim but the impact on my family is too big”, he says. “I hope I will get better and I tell my kids this, but what can I do?” he says.
Abdullah will struggle to get a full compensation payout. He needs to achieve the magic threshold of 15 percent Whole Person Impairment in order to be able to claim common law, where a worker can sue an employer for negligence, and recieve home assistance like a cleaner and potentially achieve a financial settlement. At this stage he says he is unlikely to be eligible because his injury is mainly isolated to his right leg, which will be assessed by a doctor in relation to the impact on his whole body. One medical assessment has rated his impairment at 13 percent.
Abdullah is not alone. He is one of many people who have suffered severe workplace injuries yet are struggling to prove they deserve payouts. Critics of the NSW system say it’s near impossible. One lawyer tells me: “You need to be a paraplegic.” A doctor opines: “Only the worst of the worst can get there.”
The way doctors do medical assessments changed in 2002. After the cost of the WorkCover scheme had spiraled so far into the red that the deficit reached $2.18 billion it prompted Industrial Relations Minister, John Della Bosca to introduce the system of Whole Person Impairment.
The system is based on a report by Justice Terry Sheahan, former NSW Labor Party President and now President of the Workers Compensation Commission, who recommended access to financial payouts be set at 20 percent Whole Person Impairment and medical examinations be based on guidelines produced by the American Medical Association. The law passed at 15 percent with Della Bosca admitting the change was designed to save money. But he insisted no worker would be worse off.
No one knows how many workers have been able to achieve 15%. WorkCover refused a request to release this information. However, what is clear is the new benchmark is proving difficult to reach. It appears the system was designed with the intention of reducing financial payments to injured workers.
Fast forward three and a half years and WorkCover have announced that they are starting to save money. WorkCover’s Annual Report for 2003/04 trumpets a saving of $629 million for the financial year. The deficit still remains a whopping $2.3 billion dollars. An actuarial study by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates if the rate of savings continues WorkCover could be back in the black by 2014.
The major cost saving has come from a tightening of insurer’s ability to offer injured workers a financial settlement to finalise their case and end liability. To be eligible a worker now needs 15 percent Whole Person Impairment among other criteria before WorkCover decide whether to approve it. This is proving a much more difficult criteria to meet and has restricted the insurance companies. The impact to money paid on financial settlements to injured workers has been immediate. Financial settlements fell from 23% of claims payments in 2001/02 to just 0.8% by 2002/03.
A NSW parliamentary inquiry currently underway is hearing evidence which challenges John Della Bosca’s claim that no worker will be worse off. The inquiry into Personal Injury Compensation Legislation, is examining the impact of the insurance industry on people injured at the workplace, at commercial places, in motor accidents and in public places.
Among the witnesses to testify so far is Michael Slattery QC, Vice President of the NSW Bar Association. He says he has argued for the abolition of the Whole Person Impairment regime because he feels the impact on injured workers is too tough.
“The Whole Person Impairment Guidelines eliminate the proper discretion of the clinician and ensure the medical assessors disadvantage the injured party. The system is stacked against the injured worker."
He says that after analysing the WorkCover guidelines and reviewing the American Medical Association document it is based on he was shocked to note the AMA warns against using the guide for workplace injuries. Since he testified the inquiry has requested that Slattery review the system and recommend alternatives. The foreword to the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth edition cautions: “Impairment percentages derived according to the Guides criteria do not measure work disability. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use the Guides’ criteria or ratings to make direct estimates of work disability.”
Despite this cautionary advice from the American Medical Association itself, doctors accredited by WorkCover continue to use a variation of the AMA document to measure the impairment of an injured worker.
Another legal analysis of the current situation comes from the senior partner of a Sydney firm which has been handling workers compensation cases on behalf of both injured workers and insurance companies. Speaking on condition of anonymity this source says the legal profession are frustrated by the way doctors are restricted by the rigid nature of the guidelines.
“We have had experienced doctors say that this person is genuine and has a significant injury but unfortunately under the guidelines there is no loss of use.”
These concerns are not limited to the legal profession, which has a vested interest as one of the biggest financial losers under the new system. Criticism is shared by some of the doctors charged with implementing the guidelines. Dr John Bentivoglio, an orthopaedic surgeon accredited by WorkCover argues that the system can prevent legitimate workers claiming benefits.
“There are some inconsistencies in the system where someone can be massively injured and significantly disabled but end up with a small impairment,” Dr Bentivoglio says.
He says the whole person impairment scheme disadvantages people like Abdullah who have injuries isolated to one area of their body. In addition to this, he says, if you have a tennis elbow, broken bones or one of the most common shoulder injuries - a rotator cuff tear you can expect very little impairment from medical assessments because the guidelines tell doctors to discriminate against them.
Daniel Reeves has had a career change forced upon him at 28 years of age. In February this year, while working as a labourer on a construction site, Daniel was putting up an artificial scaffold floor with a group of co-workers so they could begin work on the next level of a building. They had just finished laying down the floor panels, a few storeys above ground when the panels suddenly gave way. His supervisor was standing underneath the planks as they came down and was instantly decapitated by the impact. Daniel estimates that he fell about three and a half metres, fracturing vertebrae and sustaining disc damage to his back. He hates talking about the incident because it is never far from his thoughts.
“I see the incident everyday and it won’t go away,” he says
Daniel hasn’t worked since the injury and he says is now seeing a psychologist and a psychiatrist who are helping him to move on. His orthopaedic surgeon has told him he can never return to manual labour, however according to his solicitor, his back injury alone is unlikely to be severe enough to reach 15 percent. His injury is too recent to be medically assessed for permanent impairment.
The Whole Person Impairment system impacts on Daniel in a special way because he cannot add together impairment from his psychological condition with that of his back injury to achieve one figure. This limitation means they must be assessed as two separate conditions, making 15 percent a formidable target.
“I felt pretty shocked and speechless when I found that out. I have injuries that will exist for the rest of my life and I fall into two categories, which makes it unlikely I’ll get 15%. That’s what I can’t understand, just how hard it is to get,” he says, his voice trailing off.
Daniel has started thinking about what other jobs he could do, but admits he doesn’t have a large range of options. He is worried about the future with his partner and three children. In particular he agonises over what will happen to their Woy Woy home if he can no longer afford the mortgage.
The real impact of the changes to workers compensation is only beginning to come to light now because the process of claiming permanent impairment takes at least twelve months after the injury for the medical condition to stabilise.
If injured workers want to claim permanent impairment they must follow a process. First they are assessed by a doctor accredited by WorkCover. Once a worker receives a medical opinion they submit it to their insurance company.
Should the insurer believe the claim is too high they can get their own medical opinion and if the two parties cannot agree on a lump sum, the claim goes before the Workers Compensation Commission (WCC) to resolve the dispute. In 2004, more than 10,000 disputes were lodged and insurers and workers were able to agree without any help in 6,469 cases.
If the two parties can’t agree, the WCC takes over the resolution of the dispute. One option they can choose is the appointment of an Approved Medical Specialist, a doctor who examine the worker and whose opinion is final. An appeal is possible on limited grounds.
The medical community is scathing of the success of the Whole Person Impairment scheme so far.
Dr Ron Thompson, a GP who has specialised in conducting medical assessments of injured workers since 1986, says the system is flawed because it is so rigid it disallows the clinical judgment of the doctor.
“Given their free choice the medical profession would not be using these guidelines. They are of no use to someone practising clinically,” he says.
Dr Thomson, who has completed the WorkCover training argues that the imposition of the American Medical Association guide is purely political and has no solid medical basis. He is particularly annoyed that a doctor cannot decide how impaired a worker is based on the impact of the injury in their daily life and the influence pain has on an injured workers condition.
The NSW Bar Associations, Michael Slattery agrees with Dr Thomson, arguing the exclusion of pain eliminates an entire area of medical expertise. He says doctors are capable of deciding whether a worker is genuine or not.
“Sure pain is hard to measure. However, a doctor can use reports of pain to determine whether symptoms are inconsistent with the injury and their clinical examination,” he says.
Not all doctors are so critical. Dr Con Costa, a GP in Sydney’s inner-west sees a steady flow of injured workers, has completed the WorkCover training and believes that while the system is flawed, using one methodology is a positive change.
He describes a scenario in the old system where two doctors could assess the same worker and come up with radically different opinions because they used different methods. The flaw he sees in the new system is the restriction of the doctors’ ability to include the amount the impairment of a person has on their daily life.
“A piano player is entitled to no extra impairment than a garbage collector who loses a finger despite the impact on their life. The guides do allow for 1-3% additional impairment based on how much it has impacted on their daily life but often it’s not enough,” says Dr Costa.
Like Dr Costa, orthopaedic surgeon John Bentivoglio is happy that he is now working under a standardised system. However, he says he sees many workers who he believes are so badly injured they should be eligible for all the financial benefits associated with achieving 15 percent. But the system is so rigid that many worthy people fall short.
“For the people who are on the cusp where they can’t quite get the last one percent that is unfair and harsh. You could have a back injury, have a disc operated on, have ongoing problems and you only get to about 12 or 13 percent. That’s a significant disability, with ongoing pain in your back and down your leg, probably for the rest of your life,” he says.
When the changes to workers compensation were proposed by the Carr government in 2001 they were met with a vocal public campaign against them by union groups. The high point of the protest was a rally outside Parliament House claiming that the changes would severely limit the benefits of injured workers. Then Premier Bob Carr justified the changes by claiming the existing system was full of widespread rorting and being abused by the legal fraternity.
Opposition spokesperson for Industrial Relations, Chris Hartcher says contrary to public statements by Carr the intention was always to reduce workers benefits in a crude attempt to save money.
“The scheme excludes the great majority of injured workers and that is exactly what the system was designed to do,” says Hartcher.
Dr Gordon Moyes of the Christian Democrats Party is Chairperson of the inquiry. He describes the content of the public hearings so far as “mostly negative, tragic and emotional stories from people who are not treated as well as they should be.”
Dr Moyes says it will be up to the committee to bring a “greater sense of equity and justice by recommending that laws change.” He notes that the Whole Person Impairment scheme has featured prominently in the inquiry’s public hearings and will be reflected by their recommendations.
Another member of the committee, Greens MLA, Lee Rhiannon thinks it is inevitable that the system will need to change.
“Clearly it is a cynical attempt by the government to save money,” she says.
Another steadfast critic is Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, Democrats MLC who has been campaigning against the use of the Whole Person Impairment from when it was first mooted. Having worked as an occupational health doctor before entering parliament, he says he knew the system would be unfair.
“It is much more convenient to give the doctors a formula which gives them much more consistency and then they can give a magic number where they can say, ‘See he’s only X percent impaired and he should get X dollars,'” he says.
Chesterfield-Evans proposes a system where in addition to a medical assessment of permanent impairment, a worker has a financial assessor determine the actual cost of their injury. He has made a submission to the inquiry calling for the change to be made.
A spokesperson for the Insurance Council of Australia says although the insurance industry is upset at the limitations placed upon their ability to offer financial settlements to injured workers, they are content with the way the Whole Person Impairment scheme is working and see no reason to change it.
Despite repeated requests to respond to the allegations of an anti-worker bias in the workers compensation system the Industrial Relations Minister, John Della Bosca declined to comment.
All of this political wrangling is of no use to injured workers like Abdullah Badawi and Daniel Reeves as they wait to see if they will get justice from the workers compensation system.
They are concerned that any change may come too late. Abdullah Badawi takes it quietly, but Daniel Reeves says he is furious at the way he’s had to fight for compensation.
“This is the worst experience of my life. I always thought the system would look after me but I honestly feel the injured worker has no power. If they think this system has made it better for workers, they’ve got it all wrong, that’s for sure,” he says.
And the South Australia Government are going to have a brand new legislation to beat all other states. It tried back then, during and now. Comes back down to management I dare say.
WorkCover seem to visit this site on a regular bases. Must have not bad jobs. Situated in the heart of the city, air conditioned office, surfing the net all day.
Wonder what other perks come with the job??
mismanagement of another worker’s claim by the claims agent has unnecessarily inflated cost of that worker’s claim
Here is an interesting application from an EMPLOYER.
Application for review -- imposition by WorkCover of supplementary levy on employer after alleged adverse claims experience -- levy partly calculated on basis of cost of claims -- allegation that claim categorised by the claims agent as primary should have been classified as a secondary disability -- allegation that mismanagement of another worker’s claim by the claims agent has unnecessarily inflated cost of that worker’s claim -- whether such a situation sufficient ground for application -- matters to be considered in making out such grounds in proceedings before the Panel
PETS at risk of self-harm are increasingly being prescribed anti-depressants because they cannot discuss problems in their lives with others, a leading veterinarian says.
Zoo and wildlife medicine specialist with the UK’s Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Romain Pizzi, told the Telegraph that more pets were being prescribed Prozac.
Tropical birds such as parrots seemed to have been the most affected by depression, Mr Pizzi told the newspaper.
But Mr Pizzi said anti-depressants were only used in the most extreme of cases.
“Firstly, we will change the environment of the animal and make sure it has more stimulation and toys,” Mr Pizzi told the newspaper.
"When we have ruled out underlying medical problems, we try to break the cycle by using Prozac… (which) is given to the parrots in liquid form.
"It doesn't cure all animals, but around two-thirds respond to the treatment. In a small number of cases things will go well until we wean them off Prozac and the problems return."
Mr Pizzi said the severity of some pet’s depression often put their lives at risk.
"Typically if people go out to work all day their parrot will get very bored and frustrated and eventually develop depression,” he said.
“Symptoms often include plucking out their feathers or self-harming, which is obviously very dangerous.
“When cockatoos in particular are depressed they can start to self-mutilate and peck their own legs to the bone."
Some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies have also recognised the need for anti-depressants for animals.
Last year, Eli Lilly released a chewable anti-depressant for dogs onto the US market.
The manufacturers even gave the “Reconcile” drug a beef flavour.
Pfizer has also created a diet drug for dogs, as well as motion-sickness medicine for all pets.
Whoever posted the above is clever. Workcover understand the problem of injured workers staying at home all day and getting depressed.
Thats why two year reviews were invented.
If thats not enough to keep you on your toes for two years well a few tribunal hearings thrown in, a couple of added specialist appointments for good measure, a few case conferences , meetings with rehabilitation consultants etc.
All monitored by case managers and investigation agents to make sure you do not have too much spare time on your hands.
After all, if all the injured workers went back to work or were paid out Workcover would no longer exist. Everyone including the board would be out of work. Its Workcover's job to keep injured workers on the system thats how the system works, its not designed to have injured workers return to work.
Seems WorkCover's latest advertising about pushing workers back to work before they are fully recovered is not supported by real research!
Going to work ill costs $25 billion
By Adam Cresswell
May 29, 2007 12:30am
WORKERS who are over-fond of the Monday morning sick call have long been a target for human resources managers, but it seems the genuinely sick who continue to struggle in to work are costing the country far more.
Research to be published today by health fund Medibank Private puts the cost of "presenteeism" – the reduced productivity of sick workers who continue to report for duty – at $25.7 billion every year.
That makes the cost of presenteeism to businesses nearly four times greater than absenteeism, where sick workers stay at home. Previous research by Medibank Private in 2005 suggested absenteeism cost Australian businesses about $7 billion each year.
Presenteeism was found to cut productivity by 2.5 per cent – the equivalent of each employee losing six working days per year.
Medibank Private managing director George Savvides will today urge employers to invest in health programs for employees, saying the new findings showed the investment would pay off.
"If employers could invest in their staff's health and consequently halve the average productivity lost per employee, the increased productivity would inevitably flow through to a business's bottom line," Mr Savvides will say at the launch of the research.
The latest research, commissioned from independent economic consultancy Econtech, analysed prevalence and severity of 12 different health conditions, ranging from asthma and arthritis to high blood pressure, migraine and skin problems.
It found the direct costs to business – compared to an alternative scenario where workers remained at 100 per cent of their normal productivity – was $17.6 billion.
The remaining $8 billion came from the flow-on effects to other businesses, such as suppliers and customers, whose own business activity was reduced as a knock-on effect.
Depression and allergies made the biggest impact, accounting for 19 per cent each of the total loss in productivity attributable to presenteeism.
Medibank Private's public and industry affairs manager, Craig Bosworth, said the report was the first to quantify how presenteeism affected other businesses indirectly.
"If a worker produces 190 widgets a day instead of 200, that has a flow-on effect to the rest of industry which needs those widgets, as well as to the suppliers who provide the materials to make the widgets," Mr Bosworth said.
"HR managers and chief financial officers can for the first time see the flow-on cost to their business. Any direct investment in the health and wellbeing of employees can now be seen as an investment in the bottom line."
Flu vaccination programs, encouraging recreational activities for employees in breaks and after work and providing fruit and other healthy food in staff canteens were all examples of measures employers could take, Mr Bosworth said.
The Medibank Private research found that while 53 per cent of staff had taken at least one day off in the previous four weeks, 77 per cent said they had gone into work while suffering a health problem. Of those who had gone in to work, 88 per cent said they felt less productive.
On average staff said their productivity nearly halved.
Posted by Waymouth Fraudster at 7:57 PM, 26/2/2008
Occupational and Health act also agree there is danger working with someone who is on medication. Having said that, its all about retraining, rehabilitation or a pay out, not trying to put square pegs in round holes as the situation is now. I have injured my shoulders and I can not lift my arms above chest height, one job fit was for a security guard? go figure.....
What if every claimant over three years receiving benefits are paid out 5 years of wages?
They would have to qualify. Type of injury, cost of maintaining, length of injury etc....
A guess, $600 million. A saving of currently $300 Million.
Not a bad saving hey?
Oh I forgot, there wouldnt be any work left for the agents who created this many long term active income claims.
Quote from Julia Davison
http://www.workcover.com/Home/Aboutus/News/Latestnews/WorkCoverreformscontinueEMLsoleagent.aspx
“Most importantly, EML is signed up to our strategic targets and its remuneration is tightly linked to their achievement – including incentives linked to improved service satisfaction for injured workers and employers, and reducing WorkCover’s liabilities,” Ms Davison said.
Introduction spells out the problem..Its the management
This is the opening introduction of the clayton report. It highlights the fact that "there is a failure of the scheme." ( nothing to do with poor management )
There is one issue concerning the current South Australian workers’ compensation system upon which there is
widespread agreement. That is the judgment that the scheme is failing to fulfil a number of the objects of the
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (WRCA) as enumerated in section 2 of that Act. In
particular, and most relevant to this Review, there is the failure of the scheme created by the WRCA to
provide “for the effective rehabilitation of disabled workers and their early return to work” (section 2(a)(ii)).
The consequences of this is that the scheme has been deficient in reducing the “overall social and economic
cost to the community of employment-related disabilities” (section 2(a)(iv)) and in ensuring “that employers’
costs are contained within reasonable limits so that the impact of employment-related disabilities on South
Australian business is minimised” (section 2(a)(v)).
I read the comments about the new reforms with a curiosity as to how it all came about.
How come WorkCover in South Australia has created such a mess?
My partner is injured and will never return to work. He has been on compo for five years now and would love to get off the system but the insurers have done nothing to help him get back to work, to help him get a redemption or to get him off the system.
You can not blame him for his injuries and yet he is the one that is suffering from the insurers mismanagement.
Clearly legislation will not fix the problems its simply an opportunity to cover up for the big mess.
What if Claytons review does not work??
What if the Federal Government do not take responsibiity for all of the injured workers?
I have noticed on the Adelaide Now web site a story on WorkCover and the change of legislation. How ironic that it has a picture of a deceased worker. Is this one of your works of art and could this lead to suicides
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/
WorkCover cuts pass caucus
Article from: The Advertiser
NICK HENDERSON, GREG KELTON
February 27, 2008 11:15am
THE State Government will introduce legislation to dramatically cut benefits to injured workers into parliament tomorrow, after caucus today approved the plan.
Labor MPs attended an emergency caucus meeting this morning which lasted more than an hour to approve the controversial move designed to rein in WorkCover’s unfunded liabilities of more than $840 million.
Premier Mike Rann said the Bill would make WorkCover in SA the fairest system in the country and believes it will be strongly supported by Labor MPs.
Do you support the cuts? Vote in our poll on the right of this page.
"The legislation will be introduced to parliament tomorrow,'' he said.
"It was an extremely good meeting and obviously everyone knows we have to fix the scheme and the scheme will be fixed – (we have) very strong support for the Bill.''
A number of Labor MPs are unhappy with the move but Mr Rann refused to discuss the extent of the dissent from the left faction of the party during the meeting.
When asked whether they were pleased with the Caucus decision as they walked from the meeting, left faction ministers Gail Gago and Jennifer Rankine did not respond.
Mr Rann said discussions did not boil over during the internal party debate.
"The great thing is there was constructive debate without heat or anger,'' he said.
"Ultimately it is about doing the right thing and as you can see from the Caucus decision we are determined to do the right thing.
"We have met with the unions and we are prepared to talk to the unions and business.
"It will be introduced tomorrow and my view is the Bill is a good Bill and we are prepared to listen to people's arguments from the business community and from the unions but ultimately WorkCover will be reformed - and it will be done so with resolve to get rid of the unfunded liability.''
Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright, who is responsible for the scheme, said he did not believe there would be any dissent from within the party when the legislation was introduced.
"Obviously it is a sensitive issue, it is a complex area but it was a good discussion,'' he said.
Angry resistance from unions
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles last night accused Mr Rann of "not acting like a Labor premier" and of "bullying through" changes to WorkCover without consultation with the people involved – the injured workers.
Union leaders will meet today to begin planning a major public campaign against the changes.
Many MPs contacted yesterday by The Advertiser refused to comment on the proposed vote, although Upper House MP John Gazzola said he had never supported having entitlements cut.
Upper House president Bob Sneath said: "If the unions and the workers are upset then I am always upset."
The stage for the caucus showdown was set yesterday when the Government finally tabled a report by financial expert Alan Clayton into the WorkCover scheme which has unfunded liabilities of more than $840 million and has the highest levy rate for employers of any scheme in the nation.
Mr Rann said the changes proposed by Mr Clayton would only come into effect for claims arising from injuries incurred following the commencement of the proposed changes.
Under the changes proposed by Mr Clayton in his 211-page report:
WORKCOVER would be the fairest compensation scheme in the country if the full range of recommendations were accepted.
INJURED workers' weekly payments be paid at the rate of the pre-injury average weekly earnings for 13 weeks and at the end of 13 weeks these payments be reduced to 80 per cent of average earnings.
SOUTH Australia adopt the same assessment as other states for average weekly earnings.
DISCONTINUING weekly payments for partially incapacitated workers after 2 1/2 years following injury.
A REDUCTION in the average levy rate of 2.25 to 2.75 per cent from July, 2009, with the current rate the highest in Australia at 3 per cent.
REJECTS any return to allowing injured workers to sue employers under common law provisions.
Mr Clayton says that if his report is adopted, the scheme will be fully funding within five to six years.
In November, 2006, the WorkCover board recommended significant cuts in worker benefits to rein in administration costs for the scheme but the Government ordered a further review by Mr Clayton which it received in December but has not considered until this week sparking claims by the Opposition it did not want to upset workers during the federal election campaign.
Ms Giles, who joined other union secretaries in Parliament to watch the Clayton report being tabled, said the Rann Government was not behaving like a Labor government.
Business reacted cautiously with Business SA director David Frith saying the Clayton findings were still being reviewed but "we want to see the appropriate legislation passed through Parliament as quickly as possible to implement the required changes to the scheme".
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith accused the ALP of being in "turmoil over the recommendations of the latest report into this ongoing mess".
"They (Labor) are ripping themselves apart," he said.
"Five years of board sackings, senior management cleanouts and case management overhauls have done nothing but make WorkCover worse. Now it's another bunfight."
Comments
I hope that some of the smug individuals who support these amendments sustain a work related injury after these changes come into force. They may discover that it is possible to have a partial incapacity beyond the 2 1/2 year mark and an employer unwilling to accodate their restrictions. Guess what happens next, they will have every chance of losing their job when the employer insists that they perform their full and unrestircted pre injury dutires, and they are physically incapable of doing so. This is the reality of what the economic rationalists are supporting. To add insult to injury, workers in this state have no right to sue their employer where their injury has arisen as a result of the employer's negligence (including a preventable explosion resulting in the loss of an arm). Well done Mike Rann and the Liberal Party, sorry Labor Party.
Posted by: John of Adelaide 9:46pm February 27, 2008
Comment 129 of 129
Have Liberal Party members infiltrated the Labor Party to such an extent that they could seriously consider introducing legislation to reduce injured worker entitlements. It is an absolute disgrace! So much for looking after the battlers.
Posted by: Paul Donato of Richmond 9:41pm February 27, 2008
Comment 128 of 129
sorry but i do not understand have i been sleeping now the government can tell you how long it will take you to get better can god even do that ? i have been working at the same place for 22 years and i have been on and off work cover for 8 years for the same injury and have had three operations I have returned to work after each operation and got back to my full duties each time . yet every time i have been placed back in the same position at work because of my employers polices . and the employer is not accountable the government want me to return to work and do not want to be accountable now work cover will disadvantage me for being hurt at work. so what your saying is i was hurt through no fault of my own at work but you want me to accountable is that morally right or just right for the people that have businesses and the government if you break something you have to fix it no matter what the cost especially if it was your fault is that not fair?
Posted by: george of salisbury east 9:38pm February 27, 2008
Comment 127 of 129
If they wanted to cut costs in North Tce. instead of getting rid of 50% of the lead arses, they'd just fire the tea lady and say we've done the best we can. Work-cover is the same as any large organisation, send 85% of managers on leave & the work would still get done. Weed out management, not cut workers rights. They took the U out of labour and the buggers don't care!!
Posted by: Robert Smissen of Country SA 9:34pm February 27, 2008
Comment 126 of 129
Michael of Adelaide, your comment is one of the very few posted here of value. The abolition of Common Law removed all liability, i.e. "no fault", from employers and in doing so removed any incentive to ensure OHS&W standards are met. While full re-introduction may be beyond us now, a partial return to allowing workers to litigate where it is demonstratable that an employer has not met safety requirements would go a long way in reducing the growing burden on the WorkCover system.
Posted by: Ryan of 9:29pm February 27, 2008
Comment 125 of 129
I have been on workcover for 6 and a half years and have suffered a permanant injury.Can anyone answer me this question? Is it that the new changes are only going to affect new claims once this change takes place not existing cases such as myself and other injured workers?
Posted by: Tony of Adelaide 9:19pm February 27, 2008
Comment 124 of 129
I have been on workcover for 6 and a half years and have suffered a permanant injury.Can anyone answer me this question? Is it that the new changes are only going to affect new claims once this change takes place not existing cases such as myself and other injured workers?
Posted by: Tony of Adelaide 9:19pm February 27, 2008
Comment 123 of 129
Boy oh boy this is some controversy. A lot of people are saying it is the end of the Rann government, well, do you think Martin HS will do better? He is from the team that wanted to give us "workchoices" ( work harder for less). The Libs probably would cut out all compo and other benefits given a chance.
Posted by: Paul of Northern Suburbs 8:41pm February 27, 2008
Comment 122 of 129
WELL, WELL, WELL. Part time premier Mike "no can" Rann believes he has made a tough decision. This is a result of a premier who spends too much of his time doing nothing. This problem was highlighted over 2 years ago when the debt was under $500,000 and this government just let things roll to allow them to win the last election and get his mate Rudd into government and now makes the decision. This should have been reviewed over 2 years ago and not workers benefits cut, but rather alter the structure of workcover and make employees accountable. Ministers should resign for this as they almost clocked a one billion debt which is once again setting this state back years in growth. This money could have been used in the infrastructure of this state. Once again us tax payers foot the bill for an inept Labor government. Rann should resign and call an election immediately and allow the people to make the tough decision.
Posted by: Andrew of UNLEY 8:06pm February 27, 2008
Comment 121 of 129
Shame on you Mr Rann! Injured workers should NOT be punished financially for being on workers comp. It is hard enought to get by on a mortgage and other expenses, and to then punish injured workers financially will only hurt them more. It does nothing to address the CAUSES of workplace injury or safe Occupational health and safety in the workplace. Why is Rann punishing injured workers in the hip pocket where it hurts them most? I'll be writing to my local Labour MP - My family and I will fight this bill to the death (yes, someone in my family is on WorkCover) and I'm ashamed to have voted Labour last election.
Posted by: Danielle Caruzo of Burnside 7:56pm February 27, 2008
Comment 120 of 129
Ive voted for you Media Mike...... BUT NEVER AGAIN..... weve put up with poor water management, poor hospitals, poor emeergency services, poor public transport NO MORE!!!!! today was ht e end of Labour's hold on power in this state. The real money wasters in workcover is the wages and fees paid so called rehabiliation providers who often have no real interes in gettin people back to work....... some of these rehab providers and companies earn more than the doctors treating the injured.
Posted by: Michael of Adelaide 7:51pm February 27, 2008
Comment 119 of 129
Once again the Fat Cats create the problem and the masses have to wear the brunt of their mistakes. I'll bet that none of them have had cut backs to their pay. Mike Rann and his government is starting to show a lack of real management in several areas which affect the state and the population that he relies on to vote him in. He would do well to remember that on election day, it is one vote per person, the masses will have their say.
Posted by: Denis Cranage of Hallett Cove 7:24pm February 27, 2008
Comment 118 of 129
I know two people who have been on work cover for injuries sustained by knowingly unsafe workplaces. In both cases Workcover were hell bent on getting the worker back into the very same job that injured them in the first place ! In the end both had to find their own safer jobs and BULLY Workcover into allowing them to work again. Oh and please ditch Centerlink counting payouts for medical expenses as income.
Posted by: Paul of Adelaide 7:17pm February 27, 2008
Comment 117 of 129
Mike Rann stated he is in government to make tough decisions, well make it by sacking the WorkCover board and Michael Wright, the smurks on their faces in parliament today with one pollie walking out saying "happy days again" really annoyed me. Do they realise they are making decisions on families lives..
Posted by: Paul Agasti of Woodville 7:07pm February 27, 2008
Comment 116 of 129
I am amazed at the number of posts that support the Rann Labor Government eroding the conditions of workers , especially the workers unfortunate to be injured while attending work. Doesn't the election PR slogan used by Rudd and Rann during the recent Fed election "working family's" apply to injured workers now the election has been won. Considering the uproar over Work Choices and the money spent by the Unions getting rid of that,one would hope they will treat this legislation the same. The hypocrisy of many people astounds including unions and their officials because do not expect anything other than a token protest with this issue by them. Can't upset the junk yard dog Foley,if you do you will be labelled a whinger. One can also question why this wasn't done before the election considering we have known of the debt problem for a long time. Smells a little off to me.!!!!
Posted by: grumpy of north of gepps cross 6:56pm February 27, 2008
Comment 115 of 129
I believe nobody wants accident that can cause pain and hardship to victims and families. I just think about something that if someone got injured with intention in his workplace, he/she can be awarded an average weekly pay for unlimited time. Of course there are many genuine and hardworking workers who suffered injuries in the wake of workplace accidents. The WorkCover claims seem to be endless and unsustainable under the present administration. It is just like an open cheque that a responsible government should do something on it. The proposal in the Report has suggested that partially incapacitated workers will be affected after 2.5 years of their claims and totally incapacitated workers can still be looked after for longer periods of time. Unless the State Government has a magical wand, otherwise the blowouts of WorkCover must be controlled and managed.
Posted by: shiuhung of adelaide 6:23pm February 27, 2008
Comment 114 of 129
as soon as you see a doctor they ask is it work cover if so it cost one hundred dollars if its not work cover its only 25dollars same as lawyers if its work cover its double so why dont you mike put a cap on these rip off prices this is your blow out not the injured worker if you want to go down this path i will still vote for you if you go your way its going to be noway
Posted by: arthur richardson of 5:59pm February 27, 2008
Comment 113 of 129
WorkCover has been drastically mismanaged by incompetents for years & is increasingly financially infeasible.This is being covered up & requires cutting back on injured workers" protection to enable it to continue. It should be to provide income protection for, & where feasible to rehabilitate injured workers. Not for unqualified beaurocrats ,excessive & inefficient management,administrators,advisers & agents etc to roort the system at the workers expense. Give us a breakdown of where our funds are spent and it will be self evident where the mismanagement is,please include the individual costs on a client who has been diagnosed permanently unable to work so we can see how much it is costing us for you not to pay him off. Unqualified case workers are changed too often & not advised of their client's history,theres no progression but continuous repeats. Honest specialist's are disgusted at the waste of time & money when shown prior reports by the client which they were'nt given & they concur to their accuracy. Don't have an enquiry or commission into WorkCover,kick your buddies out & employcompetent staff from top to bottom.
Posted by: Robert Williams of Mannum 5:24pm February 27, 2008
Comment 112 of 129
When they tell you to jump......Just ask How friggin high!!!!
Posted by: Alfredo of Adelaide 4:45pm February 27, 2008
Comment 111 of 129
Cheats R 2 blame of Adelaide Yes but I think you will find the employer's just as guilty I.e.:Phantoms,ABN,pyramid subcontractors & under declaration of employee numbers etc. Cheers!! Dave
Posted by: Dave Morley of Clovelley pk 4:33pm February 27, 2008
Comment 110 of 129
Michael of Adelaide, I think SA changed the law with the Liberals because the Government employees were suing them for their own unsafe work places. This had nothing to do with big business or small business, it was a Government protection move; now some of the bad conditions in hospitals and other government service areas can't be filed against. Workcover has to have this change, and it takes a brave goverment to do this. I know people in the employment industry that no matter what they do, they can't get people who have been injured to go back to work. Some go back to work and surprise, surprise they end up with the same injury in less than a week and back on compo. This isn't just a few bad eggs, this is quite a lot of emplyees who have got used to good money for no work. This type of rorting is happening far too often and we are paying for it. Even when once injured people are found new jobs, less active jobs that won't agrivate their injury, they turn up for a day and just say 'I don't like it' and stay on compo.
Posted by: Robert of H/-dene 4:23pm February 27, 2008
Comment 109 of 129
Do people realise that sa workcover does not pay superannuation like other states ?
Posted by: laurie of tennyson sa 4:21pm February 27, 2008
Comment 108 of 129
Workcover has been one big stuff up ever since it was brought in in 1986 by a Labour Government. It would certainly appear that Labour only wants workers support at election time. At no time did Media Mike ever say "vote for us and we will reduce your workcover". Roll on the next election.
Posted by: Howard Stevenson of Dernancourt 4:08pm February 27, 2008
Comment 107 of 129
u are a hypocrite jamie bloomberg....abusing everyone who isnt a labour supporter and now u admit how bad Media Mike and his bunch of cronies are??? both at state and federal level we CANNOT TRUST labour with public monies...look at the history !
Posted by: thomas the tank of sodor island 3:51pm February 27, 2008
Comment 106 of 129
Is it any wonder that there are unfunded liabilities when the Board recommends "significant cuts in worker benefits to rein in administration costs"? Very clever ploy but surely part of the problem is implied as being "admin costs". So cut the f#####g admin costs. That means stop admin being so parasitic on their clients.
Posted by: george of adelaide 3:49pm February 27, 2008
Comment 105 of 129
to Shane and Mel of Noarlunga, and countless others, I couldn't agree more...... I too am sure there are bludgers ripping off the system but noone here has come up with a suggestion as to how the genuine cases and chronically injured are fairly looked after, without penalty.
Posted by: Kevin Lockett of Shanghai, China 3:38pm February 27, 2008
Comment 104 of 129
I was just in question time in the SA lower house and am repulsed by what I have heard. The questions raised by the opposition all point to gross mismanagement by the Workcover authority...$850 000.000 on coffee mugs and the like. Now how is that going to help injured workers? When Rann was asked whom is responsible he said the Government. Well what about Miniserial responsibility? Clearly the Minister has failed on his watch and sat on this information so as not to damage the ALP in the federal election. Unlike the reform in other states that has seen liabilities lessend, SA will not allow common law claims for negligence. So comparing the other states with SA is very misleading. This government has been asleep at the wheel because it is drunk with power and arogance....shame Rann shame.
Posted by: Lisa of Hove 3:34pm February 27, 2008
Comment 103 of 129
Does the new WorkCover legislation also remove lawyers, including QC's, from the Workers Compensation Tribunal and cut the legal costs, that lawyers base on the Supreme Court scale, that they charge the poor and unfortunate injured workers of this State?
Posted by: kaz kowalski of 3:28pm February 27, 2008
Comment 102 of 129
Its no coincidence that we've got crap return to work rates compared to Victoria and NSW and the best compo conditions available in Australia.
Posted by: Andrew of Adelaide 3:16pm February 27, 2008
Comment 101 of 129
As always, punish the genuine for the rorts of a few. Give bad employers a reward for having unsafe worksites.
Posted by: Keith B of Mount Gambier 3:11pm February 27, 2008
Comment 100 of 129
This seems to be really unfair to those that need it the most. Maybe it is the insurers/case managers etc that need to be looked at. My partner has been on Workcover now for 2 and a half years. In that time has had an operation, attended counselling, been through 5 case managers, just as many RTW programs written and not once has he been give a job or even had assistance to find a job. Now he is told he needs to find the work himself. Wny has it taken so long???? The lastest campaign by Workcover seems to be a farce. Maybe if EML staff did their job better people would be back at work sooner etc. My husband does not say he can't do particular things only that if he does certain things then he will suffer pain. He is even happy to change industries but to no avail. I agree with some of the other comments - Rann has lost my vote. I do not want my name listed but can be anonymous from down south.
Posted by: Ellen Ling of Southern 3:09pm February 27, 2008
Comment 99 of 129
What we need is for Treaurer Foley -the same man who delivered South Australia the Triple A rating- to come out and explain how he stood by and did nothing as he watched WorkCover fall into disarry caused totally by the top end managment and the ineptness of Minister Michael Wright. I do question now that the Unins have "FINALLY" come out to support injured workers, will that also mean the end of the Union support for Michael Wright. Will we as residents of South Australia ever be told just where the money that WorkCover has had over the last 6 years has gone to? Injured workers have no control over what the inept case managers do. Employers don't have the choice of changing claims agent. The current CEO of WorkCover is just a figure head. We need answers, and the only way to get answers is to keep putting the pressure on to the Labour back benchers, and the Members of the Legislative Council. Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson Work Injured Resource Connection
Posted by: Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of Adelaide 2:59pm February 27, 2008
Comment 98 of 129
Show me the percentages: 06/07 Workcover annual report showed 10 convictions of fraud, one was dishonestly claiming travel payments, and one was a WorkCover Employee. Out of 36,000 claims for that year, the percantages are pretty low, so low it would be in the decimal point. It does not show however how many convictions SafeWork SA made against employers. One thing has to be taken into consideration is that a levy has been paid for a workplace injury and this is an obligation to get the worker rehabilitated and or compensated. Would you accept your car after an accident to be only 80% repaired? and then taken away from you.
Posted by: Rocco Musolino of Virginia 2:34pm February 27, 2008
Comment 97 of 129
If Workcover was managed properly there would be no problem. As for people staying on the system. That is clearly a management problem. Injured workers are reviewed constantly and the current legislation provides for them to go before the Tribunal and prove their injury to continue to receive benefits under section 38. So if reviews are carried out properly there would be no problem.. What people have not understood is that injured workers are kept on the system because the claims managers are not applying the sections of the act in an efficient manner, the system is fragmented and nobody is driving Workcover. How do you rehabilitate a worker who is partially injured and not able to return easily to the workforce because of the stigma associated with being a Workcover claimant with its associated psychological problems caused by being on workcover, ongoing litigation and stress, continuing mismanagement of their claims and then on top of all that having to deal with their injuries etc. Easy let a court or tribunal decide but let them appear before the tribunal in a fair and impartial manner. ( not having had their wages cut off 6 months before or being pressured into taking a payout because next month they will get nothing) So how is the new system going to fix it? Put injured workers on disability benefits. Hmmm I wonder what the current federal treasurer will think of the new cost shifting exercise.
Posted by: Gary Mason of Adelaide 2:34pm February 27, 2008
Comment 96 of 129
when the biggest union lapdog jamie bloomberg says labour stinks then u know he has been lying about how good they are !!!.....cannot trust LABOUR both state and federally with public monies....look at the history !
Posted by: thomas the tank of sodor island 2:32pm February 27, 2008
Comment 95 of 129
yet another labour stuff up that we will pay for for the next 10 years...just like State Bank....labour CANNOT BE TRUSTED with public money both state and federally..dont blame me u morons voted them in..pure and simple
Posted by: thomas the tank of sodor island 2:17pm February 27, 2008
Comment 94 of 129
They want to reduce the payments to injured workers and cap this to 80% which is a good start, but how about the hospitals who are overcharging the minute they know it is a compo claim. Out of my own experience,the hospital charged Medicare an apprpriate amount for a stay but once they knew workcover was involved this charge increased by a whopping 275AUS$ per day and so did the other charges. Maybe the government could also concentrate on that.
Posted by: Willem van den broek of Vietnam 2:04pm February 27, 2008
Comment 93 of 129
Shame on you Mr Rann. So when's the next election?
Posted by: Irene of 1:55pm February 27, 2008
Comment 92 of 129
ok, fair enough, try and get the system out of the massive debt its in, but stop screwing with the workers that have been injured through no fault of their own. Also, be more supportive for those that require re-training outside of what they were employed to do. And i just hope more employers dont try and insure through COMCARE or otherwise there will be more screwed over workers.
Posted by: mary of adelaide 1:55pm February 27, 2008
Comment 91 of 129
All members of the labor caucus who voted for this should immediately resign from the labor party and join the party they should really belong to. The Liberals.
Posted by: David of Adelaide 1:54pm February 27, 2008
Comment 90 of 129
The SWINES !!!!!!!! ( well my comment may have said it all but it will not pass the moderator)
Posted by: Paul of Northern Suburbs 1:49pm February 27, 2008
Comment 89 of 129
It would be great if we can make the system right as we all know. The genuine will suffer and they can thank the cheats for that, but as with everything there is always someone that spoils it for the rest. I know of a few that have cheated for years and enjoyed getting away with it while the genuine stuggle to get better and ward of the typecasting. Pitty it has to come to this but shoud Mike just let it get worse.
Posted by: Tania of 12:57pm February 27, 2008
Comment 88 of 129
What are the percentages? Give me the stats. Soft tissue injuries should resolve in 6 weeks and the majority of claims are probably simple sprains & strains, so the bulk of people will not be disadvangtaged. It is probably 5% of injured workers costing 90% of the money - why not target those 5%. Chuck a bit more effort at helping the minority of difficult cases back into the workforce. There will always be a few bad apples - find them and deal with them in accordance with the law - prosecute if they have done anything illegal. I'll bet not many injured workers fall into the truly illegal category but they are the ones everyone remembers and the ones that get reported on.
Posted by: out of puff 12:54pm February 27, 2008
Comment 87 of 129
I heard on the radio that the Labor caucas was forced to vote in favor of Rann, Foley, Conlon and Wright and co. It was even mentioned most members didnt know the full details on the vote. I also believe the new legislation has been written up and ready to go, it would have to be as it will be presented tomorrow. If this is how you want your government to lead this state then congratulations......
Posted by: Ian Bruce of Renmark 12:53pm February 27, 2008
Comment 86 of 129
I think it would be a good thing. There are many people taking advantage of the current work cover system. Unless you are totally incapacitated you can work. It might not be the same job you had before, so pull your finger out and get a job. And as I understand it, if you are totally incapacitated the system will still be there to support you.
Posted by: Sandra of here there and everywhere 12:46pm February 27, 2008
Comment 85 of 129
While I appreciate that there are many genuine cases out there of people injured at work who need to be helped, we all know of people playing the system. I know of a person who wasn't injured at work, but on the way to work. They then spent several years on workcover, milking it for as long as possible. Clearly the system needs fixing. This may not be the right way to do it but we need to tighten up on hangers on big time!
Posted by: Me of Here 12:40pm February 27, 2008
Comment 84 of 129
Tough call this one Âż if we properly wrote common law rights into the new legislation it would help, but then there would be access to justice issues for the disadvantaged. Perhaps here is a solution. For years the Commonwealth has been paying war disability and widow pensions Âż as these ease could this funding be applied to maintain workplace injury payments in legitimate circumstances and also to establish better investigatory procedures to weed out the `bludgersÂż? With a monopoly of labor governments surely they could find a way to filter such funds from federal to state, improving the situation across the board for all states?
Posted by: GT of Adelaide 12:32pm February 27, 2008
Comment 83 of 129
Seems Mr Rann should be worrying more about the criminals getting 5 years in jail for killing innocent people and the people that are actually bludgers on the work cover scheme instead of taking it out on the genuine people who are injured. I have worked for 45 years and never claimed any moneyfrom the government for unemployment or compo but I know there are geniune people who are out there. Try to get rid of the bludgers instead of punishing the innocent parties
Posted by: Pat of Salisbury 12:32pm February 27, 2008
Comment 82 of 129
I think Mr Rann has just lost government. Little John played around with works rights and was sent packing bye bye Mike - you just lost my vote
Posted by: Arthur Fossak of Adelaide 12:25pm February 27, 2008
Comment 81 of 129
"WORKCOVER would be the fairest compensation scheme in the country if the full range of recommendations were accepted." Fair under whos definition?
Posted by: Mike of Adelaide 12:22pm February 27, 2008
Comment 80 of 129
The system could be fixed in a matter of days if they stopped payments for "stress" related problems. If your job is too stressful, get a new one. People that have actually been injured are going to lose because of those fabricating illnesses. As the system is now, work doesn't even have to be the cause of your stress. If your home life is too hard you can get stress leave. How ridiculous is that, get off work so you can spend more time at the place that is stressful.
Posted by: Bill of Adelaide 12:15pm February 27, 2008
Comment 79 of 129
How about this inept Government running Workcover correctly. Nothing more than the supporters of Labour deserve. I wonder what Kevin 07 will get up to as well. Neith of the 2 R's could lie straight in bed.
Posted by: JC of 12:03pm February 27, 2008
Comment 78 of 129
I think they should get rid of workcover, then the workers can pay for their own medical and go onto Centrelink benefits.
Posted by: Anthony of Adelaide 12:03pm February 27, 2008
Comment 77 of 129
Why is SA the ONLY state in which a injured employee can NOT sue under common law their employer if the at emloyer has failed to provide a safe worksite that results in an injury????? This would hold more companies to account - better safety - less injuries - lower cost of Workcover isf companies know they have to really provide a safe worksite and not just lip service when the occaualional SafeWork SA inspecter pops in.
Posted by: Michael of Adelaie 11:55am February 27, 2008
Comment 76 of 129
Finally some sanity prevails. I ask why it was not done when first recommended by the board? Maybe a federal election had something to do with it and the unions are compliant with this strategy. Ms Giles has now come out against it but has been on the board for a number of years. She now says Workcover needs to be managed better. She has been on the board while it is being mismanaged I presume. Why does this state have so many more long term injured on Workcover compared to other states? Do we have different injuries than the rest of Aus? I do not think so. The workers comp act is too generous in this state and the employers and taxpayers have been picking up the tab by paying too much in levies and the Govt incurs losses in unfunded benefit liabilities.
Posted by: ali of Adelaide 11:49am February 27, 2008
Comment 75 of 129
First we injure our people then the gov punishes them by putting them below the poverty line. And they call us the lucky country (come back Mr Howard all is forgiven :) )
Posted by: Ron B of Adelaid 11:46am February 27, 2008
Comment 74 of 129
To all the malingerers whinging about their workers compensation entitlements on this website. Dont worry your claims are well and truly covered by the most generous scheme of entitlements allowed in this Country, so stop your complaining and count yourself lucky you donÂżt live in Victoria where your approved claim would receive salary at 95% cut down to 75% after 13 weeks and in Queensland you start at 85% being reduced down to 65% after 26 weeks. You can still sit at home on 80% of your salary until age 65 such a hard life not paying for travel costs and child care. Take responsibility for your own injuries.
Posted by: Todd Flanders of Evergreen terrace 11:44am February 27, 2008
Comment 73 of 129
Those workers who rort the system; are to blame for this. Simple!
Posted by: Cheats R 2 blame of Adelaide 11:34am February 27, 2008
Comment 72 of 129
Rann has just signed his Government's Death Warrant.
Posted by: Jamie Bloomfield of Adelaide, South Australia 11:22am February 27, 2008
Comment 71 of 129
Perhaps instead of cutting benefits to injured workers, the Government might rescind their decision to give themselves (more importantly their families) motor vehicles for their personal use and contribute the proceeds from the sale of those vehicles back into coffers. There are too many 'perks' afforded to politicians and I believe these need to be looked at in a more realistic light. Politicians are paid well, but some of the behaviour in Parliament has one wondering, are we getting the best for our money? If the Labor Government wants to cut costs, find a more appropriate area to do so. Do not punish those who are already in a vunerable situation.
Posted by: Lynda of of By the Seaside 11:20am February 27, 2008
Comment 70 of 129
I agree, workcover debt needs to be reeled in, but at the expense of the injured worker??? I did not choose to get injured, no employer will ever employ me, at 42 I have a mortgage and no chance of future employment, my only safety net is my weekly entitlements, sure, only 80% of my normal pay, but I do survive, Well done media Mike, now I loose my home, any self respect I may have had and maybe my wife will move on too. What about looking at Doctor fees? twice as much as a normal consult, Surgeons fees, more than twice as much, Legal fees, they are way over the top, My company, bless their little souls, invoke ever small piece of legislation they come across and force me to take them back to the tribunal time after time, what a waste of money. Hope you fall down the steps Mike, but then, ahh yes, you get paid heaps so you will be ok, tosser!!!
Posted by: Ray of Adelaide 11:13am February 27, 2008
Comment 69 of 129
I agree with Shane of Noarlunga totally. While I am sure there are plenty of people with legitimate cases, I would bet my house there are more actually bludging.
Posted by: Mel of Noarlunga 11:11am February 27, 2008
Comment 68 of 129
How can you call any system fair where injured workers income maintenance is cut off until the dispute is settled. How do you explaing to your family that we loive in a democratic society and thats how the government do things. Perhaps the job shoudl be left to Workcover counsellors to explaing why injured workers are forced to sell their family homes because they were injured at work and are not getting paid until the court setles the dispute. Will the government reimburse the Auctioneers fees and the sales tax in the case that wagnd backpay are reinstated in these circumstances? It is apprent that injured workers were not really consulted by Mr Clayton..anothe classic example of our democratic society. P.S. See you all on the steps of parliament house tomorrow.
Posted by: Homeless of Adelaide of South parklands 11:06am February 27, 2008
Comment 67 of 129
It is essential that these cuts occur. It is not about attacking the workers, the workers are fortunate to have a scheme they can basically recieve continued payment of their wages for as long as they stay off work. There are many geninue cases but also many bludgers. These reforms will see families be able to plan for the reduction in wages after three months. The reforms are good and any union action is un-waranted.
Posted by: Alex of Paralowie 11:01am February 27, 2008
Comment 66 of 129
I was seriously injured at work and can not return to that type of work anymore - so I went out and gained new qualifications for a job that I could do - I didn't sit on my lazy ass and claim work cover like I could have! I'm glad they are bringing in these new laws, there are too many people out there ripping off this system and sitting on their lazy asses cause they can't go back to their old jobs - find a new one it's not that bloody hard! Blame the bludgers for these new laws!
Posted by: Anon of Adelaide 11:00am February 27, 2008
Comment 65 of 129
I think it is time that a truely honest system of helping injured workers be found. My wife who has a permenant injury and will problable not be able to work again, has so far been of for four years and would love a chance to return to work and do what she can. Her employer has so far spend thousands on the doctor report merry go around and she has not even be able to get a proper diagnosis of her injury. I believe that a system of employer union , doctor, and worker should get together after a person is injured and work together to resplve the problem the best and most decisive way that they can to the benifit to the worker and the employer. It is the legal and medical costs that make the sheme so exspensive not the wages paid.
Posted by: John De fluiter of Adelaide 10:57am February 27, 2008
Comment 64 of 129
AND the whinging continues from foley's whiners - wow, first i got out of the state, now i suppose i need to stop reading the local paper - CARN-ME-CROWIES!!!!!
Posted by: dave of sydney 10:57am February 27, 2008
Comment 63 of 129
FANTASTIC..Good on ya Mike. I have retired just like all me baby boomer self-centred mates so I have got all I want out of the system. I have no kids either so who cares about anyone else. You've got my vote well done!!
Posted by: Adam of Adelaide 10:55am February 27, 2008
Comment 62 of 129
The bottom line is there needs to be an encouragement to return to work and provide the opportunity to be retrained if the injury prevents return to the same position. The current workcover system doesn't provide enough incentive for that to happen. If nothing was done there would be a huge blowout in costs and worker's payments would have to be drastically decreased, much more than that proposed. This modest decrease provides incentives for employees to return to the workforce, which of course is the most important thing after recovering from a workplace injury.
Posted by: Matt Sykes of Henley Beach South 10:53am February 27, 2008
Comment 61 of 129
There would be far better ways to reduce W/c unfunded liability. This is attacking the injured victims. The employers levy should not be reduced, or if it is, then repeat accident workplaces should have higher levies, and extra charges for neglience of their OHS responsibilities. Workers should not have their earnings taken away after 2.5 years as they have done nothing wrong. If you say it is only for those who won't accept suitable employment, well you need to get onto the work placement insitutions and get their rehab staff to do their work far more effectively and find suitable employment. The genuine worker who wants to return to work is constantly frustrated by little action and support by these rehab staff. Another way to reduce workcover liability and address the return to work would be by compelling all govt. depts. to accept a certain number of workcover return to work placements every year.
Posted by: Annabel Neumann of Ridleyton 10:51am February 27, 2008
Comment 60 of 129
For the people that say Labor will lose the election because of this, did they ask what the Opposition would do? EXACTLY THE SAME if not WORST, while slashing every other service like hospitals, schools and sell off everything they can get their hands on.
Posted by: Peter Jones of Adelaide 10:41am February 27, 2008
Comment 59 of 129
Some have accused Rann's government of being asleep at the wheel. You should realise that the Rann Government is still only half way to its strategic plan target of FINDING the wheel.
Posted by: Rob of Houghton 10:37am February 27, 2008
Comment 58 of 129
Good by Labor and hello liberal at state level. Rann may have gotten Rudd in but Rudd cant keep Rann in
Posted by: John of Hallett Cove 10:20am February 27, 2008
Comment 57 of 129
daz of adelaide obviously your a similar pathetic individual this is not a isolated case i saw this with my own two eyes ive known of others and even reported them to workcover with evidence that they are doing cash work while on workcover and nothing ever happens to them but one thing for sure im now in management and if some other possible employer rings me up for a reference on them i tell them to ask me one question "would i employ them again?"
Posted by: SHANE of NOARLUNGA 10:18am February 27, 2008
Comment 56 of 129
WComp is a challenging field whichever state your in. Whilst on one hand its amazing how a malingering worker miraculously recovers when he/she suffers a drop in wage rate, but at the same time penalises those who are legitimately suffering. The fact there is only one insurer doesnt help-what motivation do they have to better manage claims if there is no chance of them losing clients? The highest cost on a claim is the wages-get people back to work sooner with better injury management ie. less claims per case manager to ensure higher quality and you will see a decrease in estimates-levies and so on. At the moment is sounds as if the whole class will be kept in at lunch for one person misbehaving.
Posted by: Em of Sydney 10:17am February 27, 2008
Comment 55 of 129
My partner has been on workcover for 2 1/2 years with a back injury. He lost his job because the company he worked for was brought out by a larger firm. The new owners made everybody's re employment conditional on being able to pass a medical, something that the employees on workcover were going to be unable to so. His income maintenance is currently at 80%, and we are struggling to say the least. We have pretty much given up on ever being able to buy our own home, leaving us at the mercy of the private rental market. We also have one child. As he is only allowed to lift 10kgs he has been unable to pick her up for the past couple of years, heart wrenching for a toddle that has hurt herself and only wants her Daddy. We would love to have more but just can't afford it. About the only time we hear from EML is to let him know that his case manager has changed - again, its a regular occurrence. They also do wonderful things like make appointments for him with specialists and then send him to the wrong address.
Posted by: Fi of 10:13am February 27, 2008
Comment 54 of 129
Well to all you people that voted him in its your fault. I know lets do what super Rudd does when the going gets tough HAVE A REVIEW
Posted by: read between the lines of 9:36am February 27, 2008
Comment 53 of 129
Is it just me, or have others noticed the deterioration of spelling and punctuation across the range of contributors? Anyway, I know from first-hand experience that there are a lot of contracted Rehabilitation Providers who earn a lot of money from WC, but who achieve very poor rates of return to work. If these companies were on performance-based contracts, they'd owe money to the system, and the Board would be in The Black. Sure, they comply with their paperwork and reporting obligations, but oftentimes that's just a matter of explaining their failure to return workers to the shop floor. The system does need to stop rewarding this type of poor performance (frequently from people without ANY qualifications), becasue there is an enormous rehabilitation and medicolegal industry that thrives on conflict and confrontation. Effective rehab from qualified providers with realistic goals will put the worst of these out of business. Everyone, including the Case Managers, needs to be given the opportunity to say "Enough is enough - time to settle." The long-term liability is all about legislation that commits the Insurers to persist with rehab instead of redeeming. On the other hand, settlement should not be a pot of gold that workers can dip into repeatedly. It should be fair, not a means to achieve your dream lifestyle. Good luck to all.
Posted by: Ross of Parkside 9:32am February 27, 2008
Comment 52 of 129
Without commenting specifically on the proposed changes, to Janelle of Adelaide, yes that sounds reasonable to me but how do easily determine who are the malingerers and who are the ones in real need. It took a loved one of mine in desperate need to see that there are not always black and white cases that are easily determined. Your solution is not always going to be that simplistic.
Posted by: Kevin Lockett of Shanghai, China 9:28am February 27, 2008
Comment 51 of 129
You voted for it!
Posted by: Grant of Rostrevor 9:25am February 27, 2008
Comment 50 of 129
Hey come on guys those numnuts are saving for their corporate box for next year ! Whatever gave you the idea they give a stuff about any of us ! with them there we are ensured of winning the backward state of the year award every year ! even" Brumby" can see that !
Posted by: drecked of Nappy Valley 9:24am February 27, 2008
Comment 49 of 129
The online poll is an interesting concept, I wonder How many of the 1000 WorkCover employees, case managers, rehab consultants etc are voting?
Posted by: Paul Tonnone of Croydon 9:20am February 27, 2008
Comment 48 of 129
A third world state.Why are people waking up now?We have had cronyism,intimidation,illegal conditions and union indifference for years.Surely the rights of injured workers are going to be overlooked.As for all the fools who believe the ALP represents the interests of the average working Australian - you get what you deserve!
Posted by: Fred of Flinders Ranges 9:18am February 27, 2008
Comment 47 of 129
Easy to fix the problem: punish employers, who don't care about safety by raising their premiums. Reward employers with good records by lowering theirs. Don't keep punishing victims of accidents like what has been going on for years with people hurt in motorvehicle accidents, Joe
Posted by: Joe Wiegand of 9:17am February 27, 2008
Comment 46 of 129
Every person I know who has had a workcover payout has been a bludger. Some of those bludgers are my family and friends......... the system needs to stomp out these kinds of people so the ones with legitimate injuries do not suffer.
Posted by: Amanda of Aldgate 9:14am February 27, 2008
Comment 45 of 129
Mr Clayton and Mr Rann wonder why the report didnt suggest MAKING exempt self insured WC employers no more....As they pay NOT ONE CENT! into any funds via a levy like many other employers do...yet most Exempt self insured employers are major companies with many workers the levy they would have to pay to my mind would increase revenue for WC by a huge margin.....and as is now if any worker from a exempt employer gets injured whilst happening to hold a health care card they will get 95% medication paid for by MEDICARE! and NOT! the self insured exempt employer... WHY? is the TAX Payer funding! self insured employers..oh yes now heres a rout been going on by exempt employers for years...
Posted by: Spider of Adelaide 9:05am February 27, 2008
Comment 44 of 129
There are two points, one for and one against. The one for is that there are people out there milking the workcover system. there is not too much wrong with them but they stay on workcover for years and years and then finally maybe get a payout and we have seen proof of this on current affair programs. a lot of the workcover claims are for stress well who doesn't get stressed with their job a lot of people do. The one against is those workers that actually do get seriously hurt they need to live somehow but how long do they get workcover payments for it surely cant be for the rest of their lives. the parlliamentarians are OK they have their big pay packets and great super they can retire really early for only sitting in on a few government sittings per year. We have a very large problem here is SA. The government wants to increase the population so they are trying to bring in people from overseas, that is all fine and good but nothing has been done to try and accommodate these people i.e. do we have extra reserviors for the water they are to comsume. Do they do anything about the road system as there are a lot more cars on the road etc. Common Mr Rann pull your finger out and do something for the whole state and and pls don't take credit for the little things that are done i.e. tram extension, no wonder we have obese people.
Posted by: adelaideresident of 8:57am February 27, 2008
Comment 43 of 129
Mr Rann is sounding more like John Howard everyday. Its an absolute disgrace to even comtemplate cutting benefits to genuinely injured workers. I can't believe i am hearing a Labour leader support this. With this and the Law and Order debacle with this softly softly attitude of Judges and Rann and the Governments lack of guts to take them on. I might have to vote independant oh god I can't believe i am saying this Liberal at the next election.
Posted by: David of Adelaide 8:55am February 27, 2008
Comment 42 of 129
Am I dreaming. I thought the LIberals would support the business sector and crucify the worker in this way and Labor would fight to the death for workers rights. Mike you idiot. These changes will affect everyone as we all work and know someone who has been injured at work at sometime and needed workcover. It wont be hard to work out who to vote for at the next election. Goodbye Mike. What about those in dangerous occupations such as the police or firefighters who get badly injured protecting us all. Why would they want to do they when they will be left high and dry if the get injured. Snap out of it Mike. You are a Labor man. Trim the admin costs and reduce the fat cats and leave the workers entitlements alone.
Posted by: john of unley 8:55am February 27, 2008
Comment 41 of 129
How many times do I have to keep saying this, it's not the injured worker that is bleeding Workcover it is the medical profession and the "boys club" that are ripping Workcover off but the gutless government won't take them on they pick on the most vunerable ..... shame shame shame Rann.
Posted by: Peter of She'll be right 8:50am February 27, 2008
Comment 40 of 129
From the sounds of it, the Workcover system is a shambles. So shouldn't the solution be to fix the system? Instead Mr Rann wants to punish the injured workers using the system?! What happens if the system deteriorates further, will more cuts be made to benefits to balance the books?!
Posted by: paulm of adelaide 8:49am February 27, 2008
Comment 39 of 129
Remember the state bank fiasco and the lack of attention it recieved from the Bannon Gov. Well Mr Rann still lingers from that Government and this stinks of the bank fiasco all over again. Everyone else ends up paying for their incompetence.
Posted by: Adelaide of Adelaide 8:48am February 27, 2008
Comment 38 of 129
Duane of Royal Park ...couldnt help but to post another comment re this person letter..Spot on Duane very well desribed and though no laughing matter had to chuckle when reading...'and meetings with this week's new case manager'....OMG This is particualr annoying as with many companys they use this as a reasoning for delays, even if a injured worker has a independant Rehab' consultant they'll be told now by the Rehab' consultant lets see how the new Case manager handles things before we act/appeal whatever the case may be..OMG how many times this has happened with myself.
Posted by: Daz of Adelaide 8:47am February 27, 2008
Comment 37 of 129
I think if this one goes through Mike there will not be a labour government in power after the next election. Sure I know some people are probably abusing the system but what about all the genuine people. Weed the bludgers out for the sake of the genuine people. Do your job Mike Rann,
Posted by: Adelle Stuart of Paralowie 8:43am February 27, 2008
Comment 36 of 129
Shane of noarlunga ....How pathetic using ONE! isolated case that may not even be factual are you a professional who can tell if the ABUSE! the employer handed out had No! effect on this person..NO! your not and no you wouldnt have a clue...Blinkered people like you should be seen but not heard PFFT!...being injured being abused by the employer is a massive ingredient to Stress for crying out loud..but then again peeps like you know it all dont ya...
Posted by: Daz of Adelaide 8:39am February 27, 2008
Comment 35 of 129
There was not too much wrong when the private sector provided a choice of cover. The govt. take it over and this is what we get, mismanagement and huge debt. Get rid of WorkCover and allow the insurance companies to do what they do best. The way it's going, I can see another State Bank disaster coming on.
Posted by: Neil of 8:39am February 27, 2008
Comment 34 of 129
Rann you cant be that dumb surely. Did you not just see what happens to arrogant Govts that attack workers at the expense of business profits?
Posted by: Ghost of WorkChoices of Adelaide 8:38am February 27, 2008
Comment 33 of 129
Mr A Dad you yourself over look those so-called increase's are in the most servere of case's like being completly diasbled or even death with maybe only 1% at most injured being in that area and think you realise this? perhaps your a Employer hey?...Its the General injured who will be effected by the cuts...Tip for Rann look for another job by next election and tip for Hamilton Smith go buy a lottery ticket you lucky Mug as you'll be next premeir by default, God help this State as the State cant help itself..:( Tip to my Rouge Exempt WC employer ..sux eggs ya mugs as this new legislation WILL NOT!!!!! BE retrospective so pull your finger out be proactive be professional and now offer a fair and reasonable redemption so myself and my children MY ENTIRE FAMILY can actually move on with our lifes instead of the contiuned suffering we have endured for past 6 yrs since first being injured and 2yrs after WINNING a court case where this rouge employer tried to sack me for what they decribed as 'Serious Wilful Misconduct' They did this so as to NOT!! have to continue paying any WC income maintance as that type of dismal title is considered a breach of WC mutualality so therefore if guitly a injured worker would lose there entitlements..., It bit my employer on the backside with myself cruising in to be vindicated of no wrong doing at all (mianly because i had not)...and since this win the employer has done absalutly NOTHING!! they have dragged my situation out since 2006 in hope this new legislation would be there ACE and would save them from there responsibilities...Now all this cost my family $10000,00 in legal fees and out of my own pocket how unjust is this that i cant even claim the costs how absurd a injured worker is 10k out of pocket from simply having to defend themself via a certain court system.
Posted by: Darren of Adelaide 8:35am February 27, 2008
Comment 32 of 129
So ramming through a bill to reduce workers rights who are at their most vulnerable - injured and currently out of work. Have you not just seen what happens to Govts who introduce bills to attack the average worker? I`m a Labor supporter through and through but I will now vote against you till you rescind it or you are replaced by a Labor leader who when faced with the choice between employer profits or out of work employees injured by their job doesnt support the business groups. If I wanted a Liberal Govt I would have voted for one.
Posted by: Crow of adelaide 8:35am February 27, 2008
Comment 31 of 129
Its all very well to say prosecute the malingerers. What stops bullying in the courts to throw workers off the system? Who is going to help the injured worker who is refused a redemption by the claims agent because they woudl cost too much or because their claims is not yet stable( despite being injured for 5 years or more) From an injured workers view point there are problems in the management of the system, the legislation already provides for reviews at two years but they are not done in an effective manner.
Posted by: steve christos of Adelaide 8:33am February 27, 2008
Comment 30 of 129
Imagine what condition SA would be in without the federal gift of millions upon millions of dollars from GST. What is the state government doing? Are they doing anything? How about some proactive steps for our state. Their biggest claim to fame is extending a tram line a few metres - what a joke the Rann clan are.
Posted by: Barry of Paradise 8:31am February 27, 2008
Comment 29 of 129
Can't balame the Liberal party for this one Mike, only $60 million 6 years ago now $900 million. Complete and utter mismanagement by the Workcover authority with Labour alseep at the wheel. But it's ok the mining boom will drag us out of this mire won't it Mike?
Posted by: Gordon Shomway of Melmac 8:30am February 27, 2008
Comment 28 of 129
David of Adelaide rightly points out that this is the easy path for Workcover management. Getting people back to work quickly is the real key to cut costs, Dr Persse's analysis has revealed. Trudy points out the personal real life tragedy of worker injury. A compassionate solution must be found.
Posted by: Dennis of Millswood 8:28am February 27, 2008
Comment 27 of 129
I guess if they throw workers off the system after 2.5 years it will be ok. At least injured workers will not have themselves and their families under constant surveillance, they will not have to face the tribunals and courts to answer whether their attempts at rehabilitation, attempting work trials were inconsistent with their stated injuries. From an injured workers viewpoint the Board and management are too focussed on litigation instead of attempting to assist injured workers. By the way if there is no common law claims how many unethical employers are going to simply sack their injured workers to throw them off the books? Seems this is a problem that has not been considered in the past decade and must have created some of the blowout.
Posted by: jeff Thompson of Adelaide 8:27am February 27, 2008
Comment 26 of 129
to mr A DAD the report may increase the prescribed sum to $400.000 but be aware the current $137.900 is rarely paid now so do you think EML will be in a hurry to pay the higher amount? union haters like you never look at both sides. I hope one of your children or yourself is never in the position of injured workers and have to fight just to get your correct entitlements.
Posted by: kevin of modbury 8:22am February 27, 2008
Comment 25 of 129
Kevin of TTG pretty well sums it up....this government have buggered up workcover and now to fix it they penalise " real " injured workers.....just another incompetent performance from Rann, Foley & Co.....come on Hamilton-Smith fire up and give us some hope, cos with these clowns in power the state has none.
Posted by: fabio of 8:18am February 27, 2008
Comment 24 of 129
Just one simple question. Why is it that other states and able to provide the currently paid benefits at a substantially reduced cost?
Posted by: old hoon of wheelchair 8:16am February 27, 2008
Comment 23 of 129
The Australian Labor Party should change its name because its not the same political party formed to look after the rights of workers. It was founded soley for that purpose and sadly thats not happening. My father was injured in a work accident in the 1970's and thanks to the Dunstan Government he got full compensation. Don Dunstan would be turning in his grave seeing what Rann is doing to South Australia and its workers.
Posted by: Paul Martin of Salisbury 8:16am February 27, 2008
Comment 22 of 129
The whole point behind there being a "Work Cover" was to provide income protection for workers who were injured at work. Why now is the government looking at penalising those who are injured and rewarding, through levy cuts, those who contributed to the injury? Plot lost Mr Rann! It's time you took a look at your priorities and adjusted them back to a Labor point of view!
Posted by: LizzyLou of North east 8:01am February 27, 2008
Comment 21 of 129
The Union movement should count themselves lucky that the Clayton report totally ignored the submission provided by the WorkCover board. Having read the report, the only area where a workers compensation entitlement is reduced is in the reduction to 80% after 13 weeks rather then the current 1 year. There are many recommendations in the report which increase a workers entitlement, but as always the unions dont make comment on these, some being, the review of capacity to occur at the 130 weeks mark rather then the 104 week mark that it is currently, increase of the prescribed sum from the current level of $137,900 to $400,000 and permanent disability impairment lump sum payouts for a psychiatric condition. These are 3 where a worker will be better off.
Posted by: Mr A Dad of Springfield 7:51am February 27, 2008
Comment 20 of 129
Dear Mike...I think you've put your foot in "it" mate!
Posted by: bobdown of in front of my puter 7:51am February 27, 2008
Comment 19 of 129
Mr Rann surely you can go one better and just throw injured workers straight on the scrap heap thus saving the government and business money by scrapping workers compensation altogether.
Posted by: David of Adelaide 7:48am February 27, 2008
Comment 18 of 129
This is a brave move from a Government which is already perceived as arrogant, bullying and increasingly incompetent. Instead of punishing the people who voted for them the Labor?????????// Government might like to make a positive move once in a while. Unfortunately the Liberal Government is worse. We would be up ##^% creek if we had one. If anyone is wondering how Work Cover money is spent ask an injured worker to show you a summery. Hardly any is directly spent on the worker.
Posted by: SJ of Hillbank 7:48am February 27, 2008
Comment 17 of 129
Why isn't the minister responsible for this blow out being held accountable? It's time Minister Wright fell on his own sword- what a debacle! Do your job Opposition - get stuck into the Rann Government and make an issue of this! It's time we had some healthy debate in the house!
Posted by: Still waiting of Adelaide 7:33am February 27, 2008
Comment 16 of 129
These unfunded liabilities did not just pop up overnight once again Rann and Foley are asleep at the wheel. They have done nothing at all while in Government about this and Foley has the nerve to call his employers whingers.
Posted by: Steve of Adelaide 7:31am February 27, 2008
Comment 15 of 129
as usual the worker is being told they are to blame for all the ills of workcover.if the genius who wrote the report would get his bias against workers out of his mind for a moment he would realise there are other factors involved. firstly why do surgeons who operate on injured workers almost double their fees compared to non injured workers? rehab consultants are automatically forced on the injured person when in most cases they are probably not needed. lawyers costs are also high for worcover because they bloody mindedly challenge even the most obvious payments a worker receives that are covered by law. I have always been a labor voter but I can assure mike rann my vote at the next election will change if he goes ahead with the workcover changes. I will also be talking to my union about providing the labor party with funds to fight the next election. the funds should stop if rann is going to use them against the people who help get them elected.
Posted by: kevin of modbury 7:16am February 27, 2008
Comment 14 of 129
DRAMATIC cuts to benefits to injured workers ,Well done Mike a DRAMATIC cuts to benefits to you and your corupted bearucracy would be a better start for this state..
Posted by: ER of Adelaide 7:10am February 27, 2008
Comment 13 of 129
I'd say stop the payments to injured workers who are 'playing the game' ie malingering - this would reduce costs hugely.
Posted by: Janelle of Adelaide 7:09am February 27, 2008
Comment 12 of 129
The government has mis-managed workcover so badly that the scheme is headed to go broke if nothing is done! What are they proposing to fix this? They are going to victimise injured workers by reducing their income after 13 weeks! How the hell can some poor worker who currently just manages to pay the bills survive on 80% of what they're getting now? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS MIKE RANN! Remember Mr Rann, these are people who have had their lives turned upside down through no fault of their own & YOU are proposing to completely ruin them! Sure there may be one or two cheats in the system, but SEEK OUT THE CHEATS & PROSECUTE THEM, don't make the innocent majority pay for the minority's sins! Leave the injured workers alone! IN CASE YOU DIDN'T QUITE GET THAT: LEAVE THE INJURED WORKERS ALONE!
Posted by: Kevin of TTG 6:57am February 27, 2008
Comment 11 of 129
Martin Hamilton-Smith has admitted there was mis-management in the WorkCover scheme, something injured workers and businesses have been trying to tell the Rann government without success for years. Why does it have to come to an escape plan to try and rectify the problem. Again Workers of South Australia are going to suffer under a Labor Government. I just hope the real reason of the blowout is found. Mike Rann did not look at all comfortable in parliament reading about the issue. http://www.blognow.com.au/workcover/
Posted by: Andrew Pascoe of Burnside 6:43am February 27, 2008
Comment 10 of 129
Yep the system is stuffed...........so lets reduce the rights of the workers......don't look at the system because that would take effort, as one who has encountered this pathetic system I know first hand just how unjust and inequitable it is. On a bright note we have hired a worker who had a previous injury and have found a committed and valuable worker.......
Posted by: Stephen Griffen of ST Agnes 6:29am February 27, 2008
Comment 9 of 129
Claims are going down, but administrative costs soar, the government doesn't act till labour is safely past an election - seems the worst performers are the highest paid.
Posted by: Jack Roo of Mount Rat 6:21am February 27, 2008
Comment 8 of 129
Those who have been sacked as they can not return to their pre injury duties, will end up on Centrelink disability pension, no doubt be unable to support their family, loose their home as well as self respect. If you have a psychological injury [ such as that sustained in a robbery with violence] you are not entitled to any compensation at all. DO NOT WORK PART TIME or CASUAL as if you get injured [like people working while at uni] you are only going to get a small portion of casual wages, it is just not worth working in a dangerous job [ like a service station] when you have no financial protection. This is the action of a liberal government, so, why vote Labor?
Posted by: sick of and sacked 5:55am February 27, 2008
Comment 7 of 129
So much for Mr. Foley and his AAA rating -we have cause to whinge - $800 million of public liability unfunded is a shock to the States financial system. Never mind the continuous empty spin to divert attention, it has been obvious for a long time that the States financial report is a smoke screen diverted from the core issues. The first one is the cost of Government, with more than doubling, to over 1000, those being paid more than $100 grand a year in the past 5 years. The cost is out of proportion to the social need with much of the expansion controlled political fabrication accompanied by spin to show that something useful is being done. The Big Lie. Tthe State Bank fiasco. Mr.Foley protesteth too much and his spin doctor is not clever enough to use attack as a successful defence. Simple things are costly too. The School Card system for a start - seven different forms for the same purpose., the same information, all going around in different departments. Just one form will divert 21 staff, 36 kgs of sugar, 18 mobile phones, 40 kgs of coffee (some unaccounted for) 10 filing cabinets, chairs, tables, computers,and the rent and all the paper(some unaccounted for)
Posted by: Robert Stewart of Lameroo 5:33am February 27, 2008
Comment 6 of 129
Never mind the fact that WorkCover and EML spend more on surveillance and litigation than they spend on rehabilitating injured workers - lets ignore that completely. Never mind the dangerous work practices and inadequate safety at many work sites - let's ignore that completely. Never mind the devastating effects of being on WorkCover in the first place, lets ignore that completely. Never mind the endless stream of conflicting specialist reports and meetings with this week's new case manager. LetÂżs ignore that completely and hammer the weakest link in the WorkCover chain - the person this ridiculously bureaucratic system is supposed to help. LetÂżs hammer the injured worker. Labor governs for the average working person? Not any more. See you in Opposition, Mike.
Posted by: Duane of Royal Park 4:23am February 27, 2008
Comment 5 of 129
Average levy of 2.5 - 2.75%????? We pay 8.5% despite never having a claim. If anyone thinks they will cut the rate without finding another way to scam employers and workers they need help. This Government is greedy, and cares about nobody but themselves. And they call themselves Labor.
Posted by: stillwhingingkev of alloverSA 4:08am February 27, 2008
Comment 4 of 129
There is a sliding scale of responsibility that should apply. If a worker is hurt badly enough to be off work for a year or more then the right to sue an employer should be enshrined in law. Any injury that remains for years is a health and safety study that should be compensated from the employers own business insurance or personal pocket. If there was that strength of accountability, workplace safety would be tightened. Bravo to the many companies that ARE taking safety seriously these days.
Posted by: BlahNii of Rainbow 3:21am February 27, 2008
Comment 3 of 129
This is typical of this Rann government. He is not a Labour government, nor is he working to get the worker better. My husband has been on workers compensation now for nearly three years and it's nearly killed us financially. I have had to fight for his rights from day one after the company tried back sacking him...yes back sacking him. And then lying to the Workers Tribunal and got caught out and had to admit to it. It has been a nightmare. It has been proven he cannot work properly from his injuries and what "nice" employer is going to take him on now??? How is Rann going to counteract that? He is trying to re educate himself for a better chance of regaining employment, but how's that going to work now if the Rann government takes that away from him?? It's not fair it's his right.
Posted by: Trudy of Adelaide 2:22am February 27, 2008
Comment 2 of 129
here media mike what about the pathetic individuals that are making false claims they are the bludging parasites work cover should be finding and taking to court i know of a pathetic person that has been on work cover for 3 years for stress because he was not doing his job properly and the boss yelled at him these sort of pathetic individuals are the mongrel's that are ruining it for the legitimate injured
Posted by: Shane of noarlunga 2:16am February 27, 2008
Comment 1 of 129
While some may be disappointed they did not get their name in as people who made submissions for the review at least you will not be remembered as one of the arseholes who put forward ugly propositions to cut injured workers payments.
BTW how come Clayton he only referred to a few and not everyone who put forward recommendations.
He was obviously paid by the board to produce a guideline that they wanted. Not a review that was unbiased and took into consideration all the facts.
Nothing but a sham..
How can he overlook a situation where an injured worker may have a dispute outstanding and have to sell their family home because their income maintenance is cut until the situation is decided by a tribunal?
How can there be such a legislation change to stop injured workers income until disputes are resolved. How does it help Work-cover in any way?( only to give them the unfair position of being the upper hand in negotiations and injured workers being stuck in an unfair financial and bargaining position)
Surely Work-cover have a right to recovery if injured workers lose.
Now the right to recovery itself should be reason enough not to stop heir income maintenance until a dispute is resolved.
So what gives?
Tailored by the board..through and through.
This is not an independent review its a recommendation of the board made through a financially manipulated and enticed third party (Mr Clayton).
I wonder how much they paid him.
Posted by This government has no shame at 8:24 PM, 27/2/2008
It seems Rann got his way and a tragic and unecessary mistake has been made. The inevitible has just come so much closer
I feel that injured workers have been betrayed by the Government, the Unions and some of the so called advocates. I guess their Munchausen Syndrome will get a kick along now.
I have not bothered running the numbers but my initial thought is it will save them a few million in year one and then they have to find ways to force workers to be judged with some limited capacity and then they will throw them off at 2.5 years. Remember the decision to make Doctors declare a limited capacity before supporting any form of rehabilitation. That will burn you because you have capacity and are not working. I don't think Doctors will fall for it for too long.
So here is the next 3 years according to Phil.
Oct 2008 - Liability $1.2 Billion:$1.5 B in the bank: We have made the tough calls and the benefits will come!
Oct 2009 - Liability $1.5 Billion: $1.9 Billion in the bank. Oh it is going to take some time for the changes to impact, We cant lower levies yet!!
Oct2010 - Election lost, Liberal get in and simply redeem permenant as per the intention of the Act, Drop levies 30 percent - transfer the remaining $Billion to General Revenue and begin fixing the State again.
God Bless you all, I am sorry I lacked the credibility to ensure the facts were heard.
We are dealing with people who are among the most vulnerable in our community because they have suffered a serious injury. People would not be going to court with a minor injury. It would be very unlikely and they would be very foolish to do so. Such people would need a large amount of money and have a great deal of concern about a major issue that they want righted. People would not conduct such cases for the money. The system deals only with people who have had serious or traumatic injuries. We protect everyone else under law, even criminals, from retrospectivity but, when it comes to injured workers, it is too bad and people will be caught up. They will be caught out. It is true that there are remedies to the extent that, if workers accept a weekly payment that is reduced and eventually cuts out over time, they will receive something for their injury. However, in many cases they will not be fully recompensed for the damage that has been caused. I do not think that retrospective legislation is a good thing. It is something that should be used only in dire emergencies when things have gone seriously wrong and need to be changed because it is in the public interest. I do not believe that this is in the public interest at all.
Article from: The Advertiser
GREG KELTON, NICK HENDERSON
February 28, 2008 12:15am
SPEAKER Jack Snelling threatened to close Parliament yesterday as proposed changes to WorkCover sparked a political brawl.
Five Liberals and one independent MP – Kris Hanna – were warned and ministers had to yell to be heard over constant interjections, with Mr Snelling saying he would "vacate the chair" – meaning the House would be closed – unless they brought themselves under control.
At one stage, Premier Mike Rann provoked uproar when he described Mr Hanna (a former Labor and Greens MP) as "having left more parties than Paris Hilton". The Government came under extreme pressure from the Opposition over the changes to WorkCover which will be introduced today aimed at reducing benefits to injured workers after 13 weeks.
The legislation follows an emergency Caucus meeting yesterday morning which lasted more than an hour to approve the controversial move designed to rein in WorkCover's unfunded liabilities of more than $840 million.
While there was intense debate, only a handful of MPs from Labor's Left faction voted against the changes.
Another motion aimed at seeking further negotiations between Mr Wright and the unions was also comprehensively defeated. Caucus was told by Treasurer Kevin Foley that unless the WorkCover unfunded liabilities were tackled vigorously, the state's AAA credit rating could be at risk. Later, Mr Rann told Parliament the Government was committed to passing legislation through Parliament as soon as possible to make the scheme "fully funded, fair to workers and affordable to business".
He said the Government expected the legislation to be debated in April. Mr Rann said the Bill would make WorkCover in SA the fairest system in the country and believes it will be strongly supported by Labor MPs.
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith taunted the Premier in Parliament by reading out excerpts of speeches Mr Rann had made in 1995 opposing Liberal changes to WorkCover, where he described them as draconian and being part of a vicious and uncaring piece of legislation.
Mr Hamilton-Smith said those changes had only proposed cutting benefits by 15 per cent after 26 weeks while Mr Rann's changes would cut workers' benefits by 20 per cent after 13 weeks.
Outside the House, he said the Government was "in total chaos" on WorkCover. Both Mr Rann and the Treasurer demanded that the Opposition let people know where they stood on the issue of WorkCover reform because the party's industrial relations spokesman Duncan McFetridge had said, only a few weeks ago, that the scheme should be reformed but workers' entitlements should not be cut.
WorkCover chief executive Julia Davison told The Advertiser that much of the debate had been focused on one aspect of the proposed reform package – reducing the period at which payments would be cut from 52 weeks to 13. She said it was important to remember that the scheme would continue to have the most generous weekly payments of all states as well as more generous lump-sum payments.
I have noticed on the Adelaide Now web site a story on WorkCover and the change of legislation. How ironic that it has a picture of a deceased worker. Is this one of your works of art and could this lead to suicides.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/
As I understand the Workcover board requested the Clayton review to be carried out.
I wonder what input they really had into it.
I wonder how much they paid Mr Clayton to write what they wanted.
I wonder why this government did not have its own independent review done.
Perhaps this is deserving of a public enquiry to see how manipulated the system really is.
Workcover is obviously being grossly mismanaged and to say it will turn around in another 6 years is no more a load of crap that the last story we heard that a new sole claims manager will turn things around in two years.
Face up and Fix the problem get some direction into Workcover and stop the board messing with injured workers lives. They are too incompetent to handle money so why should they be handling things more precious
I remember an advert I heard years ago.
It went something like this.
" Claytons the drink you have when you are not having a drink"
Claytons was a non alcoholic mixer.
This review reminds me much of that.
Its a review they had when in fact it was not a review at all.
It was a recommendation put forward by the board in a format called a review.
Where in all of Mr Claytons review does it say that he has taken note of any injured workers submissions?
Advertiser Editorial: Cracking the whip on WorkCover
Article from: The Advertiser
February 28, 2008 12:15am
LABOR MPs will be given the chance to voice their opposition to legislation cutting benefits to WorkCover recipients. The reality is, those MPs will not be doing their job if they do not follow the lead of Premier Mike Rann and the party leadership in endorsing the changes.
The reason is simple. South Australia cannot carry WorkCover's spiralling unfunded liability.
Without tough, remedial action the $843 million unfunded liability will quickly top $1 billion and ultimately threaten South Australia's AAA international credit rating.
It also imposes a rapidly increasing impost on businesses which pay the Workcover levy.
A report to Government shows that the number of claims against WorkCover has been increasing, particularly the claims of people who have been on benefits for three years or more.
The number of claims which have been paid for 10 years or more has increased from 50 in 1998 to more than 400 last year.
WorkCover has applied levies on business which are among the highest in Australia in an effort to control debt. This, in turn has reduced the competitiveness of SA business.
The Government believes the first step must be to reduce the benefits to injured workers from 100 per cent to perhaps 80 per cent after 13 weeks. Structural costs and the burden on industry most also be cut.
Unions which argue that benefits must not be cut surely recognise that this will lead to further increases in the WorkCover debt – or cuts in other government services including health, hospitals and education.
The truth is WorkCover has serious structural flaws, does not provide an incentive for injured workers to eventually seek to re-enter the workforce, and is an enormous and unreasonable drain on the state's resources.
The plan before the Government proposes ridding the state of the unfunded debt in six years while delivering a series of levy cuts to employers.
It is the correct course of action.
Article from: The Advertiser
GREG KELTON, NICK HENDERSON
February 28, 2008 12:15am
SPEAKER Jack Snelling threatened to close Parliament yesterday as proposed changes to WorkCover sparked a political brawl.
Five Liberals and one independent MP – Kris Hanna – were warned and ministers had to yell to be heard over constant interjections, with Mr Snelling saying he would "vacate the chair" – meaning the House would be closed – unless they brought themselves under control.
At one stage, Premier Mike Rann provoked uproar when he described Mr Hanna (a former Labor and Greens MP) as "having left more parties than Paris Hilton". The Government came under extreme pressure from the Opposition over the changes to WorkCover which will be introduced today aimed at reducing benefits to injured workers after 13 weeks.
The legislation follows an emergency Caucus meeting yesterday morning which lasted more than an hour to approve the controversial move designed to rein in WorkCover's unfunded liabilities of more than $840 million.
While there was intense debate, only a handful of MPs from Labor's Left faction voted against the changes.
Another motion aimed at seeking further negotiations between Mr Wright and the unions was also comprehensively defeated. Caucus was told by Treasurer Kevin Foley that unless the WorkCover unfunded liabilities were tackled vigorously, the state's AAA credit rating could be at risk. Later, Mr Rann told Parliament the Government was committed to passing legislation through Parliament as soon as possible to make the scheme "fully funded, fair to workers and affordable to business".
He said the Government expected the legislation to be debated in April. Mr Rann said the Bill would make WorkCover in SA the fairest system in the country and believes it will be strongly supported by Labor MPs.
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith taunted the Premier in Parliament by reading out excerpts of speeches Mr Rann had made in 1995 opposing Liberal changes to WorkCover, where he described them as draconian and being part of a vicious and uncaring piece of legislation.
Mr Hamilton-Smith said those changes had only proposed cutting benefits by 15 per cent after 26 weeks while Mr Rann's changes would cut workers' benefits by 20 per cent after 13 weeks.
Outside the House, he said the Government was "in total chaos" on WorkCover. Both Mr Rann and the Treasurer demanded that the Opposition let people know where they stood on the issue of WorkCover reform because the party's industrial relations spokesman Duncan McFetridge had said, only a few weeks ago, that the scheme should be reformed but workers' entitlements should not be cut.
WorkCover chief executive Julia Davison told The Advertiser that much of the debate had been focused on one aspect of the proposed reform package – reducing the period at which payments would be cut from 52 weeks to 13. She said it was important to remember that the scheme would continue to have the most generous weekly payments of all states as well as more generous lump-sum payments.
Well i guess in several months we will have to go through questions as to why the Centerlinks disabiltiy benefit has blow out over budget..lol you in power do know how to handball..unfortuantly this time it will BITE YOU BIG TIME. Line them pockets while you can because next election your out.
<http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comments/0,22638,23287557-5006301,00.html>
Posted by: Darren of Adelaide 12:03pm today
Comment 23 of 23
I appreciate that it will be very difficult to sort out the current problem. Some of your readers may have been in short pants in 1986. You politely dismiss the "outdated private insurance schemes" in force in SA in 1986, (with very limited private sector "self insurance" in those days), :- what was the "Return to work rate" then? what were the average "Employer premiums" (adjusted for inflation) then? what was financial liability of taxpayers and the cost to the public purse to administer Worker's Comp. then? which perceived shortcomings of the previous system has "Workcover" eliminated or significantly improved for workers and employers, in the last twent odd years?
Posted by: Leo Fogarty of Belair SA 10:13am today
Comment 22 of 23
The problem with this new w/cover system put forward is all businesses will just say they have no more suitable duties for injured workers. There for just putting us all on the doll, whenever they feel free to do so. Giving employers no responsability for injuring there workers as they know they can just sack workers after 2 half yrs. Also the reason why a lot of injured workers are not back at work doing alternative duties is Businesses just say they have no duties for them so workover pays there wage instead of the company. The employers only wanna pay there workers while they can do 100% of there normal duties. Its about time they crack down on businesses!!
Posted by: craig of Hillbank 9:49am today
Comment 21 of 23
Maybe they should change the name from Labor Party( notice there is no longer a U in Labor) to the Suit Wearers Party, Blue collar workers don't count because the bastards think you'll vote for them no matter what! Will the media publish headline "LABOR GOVERNMENT SCREWS THE WORKING POOR" or will Rann bully them into putting a positive spin on this too?
Posted by: Robert Smissen of Country SA 9:37am today
Comment 20 of 23
having been on the very unpleasant workcover merry go round i know how these liberal minded changes will affect injured workers and their family.. australian workers voted for labor to get a fair go- not to be penalised for being injured at work . to rann & foley it would be a shame if these changes affected you or your family. NOT !. what happend to labor in such a short time australia ?
Posted by: john ronayne of adelaide 9:26am today
Comment 19 of 23
to missprissy of picketfences, I heard on the Radio that members voted on issues which were not detailed. Blind vote maybe, no history or facts. Just heavy handed warnings from Mike Rann.
Posted by: Henry Thomas of Somerton Park 9:10am today
Comment 18 of 23
South Aussies now have former shonky Queensland premier Wayne Goss involved in Public Service administration. What more do you expect? How long until he convinces Rann it's perfectly legal to destroy evidence required for court action?
Posted by: Dave of Bris. 8:47am today
Comment 17 of 23
The section of this Bill to cut injured workers' wage entitlements should be subject to a conscience vote.
Posted by: Dennis of Millswood 8:35am today
Comment 16 of 23
Can not see why unfunded liability is such a problem, It's not as if every worker covered is going to get hurt at the same time and all go on compo
Posted by: On Compo Of Adelaide of 8:13am today
Comment 15 of 23
Hi, shame on you Mr Rann, firstly it is as though you are blaming this unfunded liability on the injured workes, if you are not then why are you punnishing these people? If the sceam has an unfunded liability to the degree that everyone is saying, and I dont believe it has! then shurely the missmanagement of this should be addressed!!!!!! publish the figures to varify this unfunded liability, let these figures be analised by the public. the figures are wrong, workcover management is wrong and I am ashamed to say after being a Labor voter all my life Mr. Rann you are the wrong person for the job. " RESIGN NOW "
Posted by: kirk of adelaide 8:11am today
Comment 14 of 23
Hi, shame on you Mr Rann, firstly it is as though you are blaming this unfunded liability on the injured workes, if you are not then why are you punnishing these people? If the sceam has an unfunded liability to the degree that everyone is saying, and I dont believe it has! then shurely the missmanagement of this should be addressed!!!!!! publish the figures to varify this unfunded liability, let these figures be analised by the public. the figures are wrong, workcover management is wrong and I am ashamed to say after being a Labor voter all my life Mr. Rann you are the wrong person for the job. " RESIGN NOW "
Posted by: kirk of adelaide 8:07am today
Comment 13 of 23
The Rann Governments proposed cuts to injured workers is the last straw. I have NEVER voted Liberal in my life, but I am now seriously considering doing so. As someone said in their post on this site, "If I wanted a Liberal Government, I would have voted for one.". Rann and Foley are a disgrace, and I believe that they are the pair who will lose Labor government in this state. They should be ashamed.
Posted by: Jamie Bloomfield of Adelaide, South Australia 7:56am today
Comment 12 of 23
Sounds like a dangerous work place. Closing it down will reduce the workcover potential exposure.
Posted by: old hoon of wheelchair 7:43am today
Comment 11 of 23
All one can say is that We the Australian people were mislead by the Labor Government in thinking that when they were voted in that they were going to help the working class Australian but instead they have turned on us, and now we have to put up with this for the next 3 years, whatÂżs next? I was better off when the coalition was in.
Posted by: Don Skarstrom of Barossa 7:39am today
Comment 10 of 23
If work cover is such a problem why does the government run the scheme. Years ago each employer went to a private insurer. Just watch work practces improve as the premiums vary for each employer. This is an area that the government does not need to be in
Posted by: old hoon of wheelchair 7:17am today
Comment 9 of 23
Why dont exempt employers pay there way..? after all being exempt saves them millions yet even though being exempt they still recieve support from tax payed mediacare funds for a injured workers medication WHY are they not paying full medication costs..(this is what my employer ABB Grain has been doing for many years) This wll be a question I ask today in your office Mr Rann and will NOT! leave till get a reasonable answer as to why Exempt self insured employers are being supported through the back door all whilst small employers DO! pay a levy.....
Posted by: Darren of Adelaide 6:28am today
Comment 8 of 23
If we bring back common law claims for negligence I can guarentee you that we will instantly have safer work places. That is what they have done in Victoria and they have reduced liabilities. Unsafe abusive and overworked workers = more workcover claims. Reducing the weekly entitlements wont work without the common law!
Posted by: Lisa of Hove 6:23am today
Comment 7 of 23
We are dealing with people who are among the most vulnerable in our community because they have suffered a serious injury. People would not be going to court with a minor injury. It would be very unlikely and they would be very foolish to do so. Such people would need a large amount of money and have a great deal of concern about a major issue that they want righted. People would not conduct such cases for the money. The system deals only with people who have had serious or traumatic injuries. We protect everyone else under law, even criminals, from retrospectivity but, when it comes to injured workers, it is too bad and people will be caught up. They will be caught out. It is true that there are remedies to the extent that, if workers accept a weekly payment that is reduced and eventually cuts out over time, they will receive something for their injury. However, in many cases they will not be fully recompensed for the damage that has been caused. I do not think that retrospective legislation is a good thing. It is something that should be used only in dire emergencies when things have gone seriously wrong and need to be changed because it is in the public interest. I do not believe that this is in the public interest at all. The only factor if it was of public interest is the mis-management of the scheme.
Posted by: Peter Bennett of Lockleys 5:52am today
Comment 6 of 23
There clearly seems to be a management problem in WorkCover, similar to the State Bank Disaster. As Mr Rann has stated that tough decisions have to be made, why then isnt he questioning the management. A knee jerk reaction has a low successfull rate.
Posted by: Henry Thomas of Somerton Park 5:03am today
Comment 5 of 23
Mr. Foley is in now the hot seat and the squirming around on it this past year lashing out left and right has brought this to the public arena. Hiding it all this time hoping it would go away. Spin after spin about the States financial management is now exposed for what it is, just unsubstantiated spin. If the cost of Government is not reduced by a detailed house cleaning to take up this shortfall we may well will see a repeat of the State Bank fiasco. Another levy to pay for mismanagement?
Posted by: Robert Stewart of Lameroo 4:23am today
Comment 4 of 23
Will the government now reduce all members of parliament to the same conditions as the employees of South Australia? No more 24/7 coverage and reduction the same as for the rest of us. Come on Mr Foley and show boat Rann show us . I very much doubt it. Sack the lot of them.
Posted by: Jack lateen of 2:22am today
Comment 3 of 23
Is it true that the Labor backbenchers were only given an abbreviated form of the proposed changes prior to the vote?
Posted by: missprissy of picketfences 2:02am today
Comment 2 of 23
"Arrogant and out of touch." "Mean and tricky." They're the sorts of phrases we've come to expect from Labor supporters about Howard and the Liberals, but here they apply very much to Rann and Labor, especially in contrast to the Liberal's previous proposal. We can use "arrogant and out of touch" to also explain the Rann government's stance on denying adults the choice to play R18+ games and their approach to addressing the water crisis.
Posted by: Dissident of Rannistan 11:14pm February 27, 2008
Did the government consider overhauling the whole Workcover system by making it an offence to injure yourself at work.?
In true Rann government style I thought they would introduce on the spot fines for workers who get injured at work.
That would be one way to pay of the workcover debt and raise more revenue.
I think I heard Michael Wright on 5AA this morning mentioning that the new legislation will be similar to the Victorian and NSW shemes without the Common law component. If this is true, why is it there schemes are not working as well (re: a few comments above). I also heard Leon Byner give Wright a few estimates from an investigative accountant. These figures proposed would not make a difference. And another thing, If Mike Rann wanted to push this legislation now so there is enough time for workers to forget at the next election, he has another thing coming, the debt would still be there. I can still remember the last election and his campaign fight against crime. Not much improvement Mike.
This new WorkCover legislation will force workers back to work sooner. If one was to injure their back at work and receive 13 weeks full wages. In order not to lose 20% of their wage they return to work still incapacitated and would have to perform non productive work in which the employer should have no power to stop. I fear this is real predicament and this will cost the employer even more.
I heard Mr Gerard from Clipsal on the radio and he said the the changes should come in as it will encourage workers to return to work. Well Mr Gerard I hope you have a large section in your company to house and pay incapacitated workers.
Welcome
Welcome to this the 11th and perhaps most important Issue of Gun & Davey Covered for some time.
You will notice that this issue is crammed full of important recent decisions from the Full Supreme Court and Full Workers Compensation Tribunal as well as single Judges of the WCT.
The long awaited and much anticipated decision in Warren was delivered on 10 July 1998 and dispenses with the onus, previously considered to rest on the decision maker, of establishing that employment of the type nominated, is employment that the worker has a reasonable prospect of obtaining.
Although the Corporation's Appeal in Warren was in fact dismissed, the decision is without doubt a win for the Corporation and was worth waiting for.
The decisions of single Judges in both McAvoy and Cambridge are useful in establishing various ground rules in relation to Section 38(3) and (7) notices and together with Warren, pave the way for successful Section 35/38 reductions.
The Alexander decision provides important guidelines as to discontinuance of weekly payments based on refusal/failure to participate in rehabilitation programs or failure to comply with obligations under rehabilitation and return to work plans.
The "Stop Press" matter of Dunstan, which is of almost equal significance to that of Warren, resulted in the Full Bench of the WCT both reading down and refusing to follow earlier decisions which previously bound the Corporation in the areas of Section 32 expenses and rehabilitation.
Gun & Davey was involved in Warren¸ Dunstan and Alexander all of which must be considered successes for the scheme as a whole.
These decisions represent substantial changes in the interpretation of the Act and provide case managers with many opportunities for new approaches to their role.
Gun & Davey can of course assist you in both interpreting and acting upon the consequences of these important developments.
I heard Michael Wright on radio this morning also. I am sure he accepted that there was problems with the way Workcover was being managed. Took it on the chin like a real man he did..( I guess he knew nothing would become of it)
Pity he did nothing about it for years on end..
One must wonder if he was offered a cozy job knowing that one day he would have to wear the mess.
Will get pat on the back for sure. Will also go down in the histroy books for SA as one of the best performing ministers(not)
Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (15:41): Today is an historic day in South Australian political history. The Labor members of parliament met and the Labor leadership enforced over the backbench its moves to cut payments to injured workers. Never before in the history of South Australia has a Labor government moved to do such a thing of its own free will. I make an exception of the period 1989 to 1993 when there was a hung parliament and, indeed, there were some cuts to workers' benefits forced upon the Labor government at that time. But this time it is different. How appalling, almost sacrilegious, for the Premier to call upon the memory of the Hon. Jack Wright and to suggest that he would be in favour of this legislation! How utterly callous and appalling that is! Jack Wright wanted a non-fault, generous statutory scheme for workers if they were injured at work, and that is what was achieved in the 1986-87 negotiations.
Gradually, the insurance scheme for workers has been watered down, and there has never been compensation for those cuts to workers' benefits. To compare to Victoria and New South Wales is illusory because, of course, in those jurisdictions, workers can sue if the employer has been wrongful. In this case, the Labor backbenchers were not even told of all of the details in the legislation. There is real devil in the detail. For example, the modification of assessment of lump sums for permanent disabilities was just glossed over in the caucus meeting this morning.
The government seems intent on blaming everyone but itself for the shortcomings of WorkCover. The one word that has not been mentioned by the government is management and that is management of the actual WorkCover Corporation, not just the board but the actual employees of the corporation, not to mention the claims agents over the years who have handled the claims. They have fallen short and left workers to suffer.
Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (15:20): What an auspicious day for the Labor Party in South Australia. After at least 4˝ years of denial, the Labor Party comes into this place, about to slash the benefits to injured workers, and blames everyone but itself, its own incompetence and its own mismanagement. Today, the Labor Party would have the people of South Australia believe that; and I think that the Treasurer said that it was the parliament's fault. Well, let me just remind the Treasurer how the parliament got it wrong. Back in 1995, when the then Liberal government was intending to change the legislation to lower the benefits to 85 per cent of average weekly earnings after six months, both the Treasurer and the Premier rallied against it. They said, 'We will have poverty in the streets. We will be turfing the working men and women of South Australia onto the commonwealth pension scheme.' That is what they said then.
The working men and women of South Australia need to know that this government is today proposing something more draconian than that: it is reducing to 80 per cent (that happens to be 5 per cent below 85 per cent) after 13 weeks. That happens to be about half of what the proposal was back then. The interesting thing is that the Treasurer claimed today that the WorkCover scheme is not functioning; that it is impossible for it to work under the current legislative regime. What happens to all those industries, all those businesses and all those working men and women who happen to be covered under self-insured businesses?
Ms Chapman: Like at The Advertiser.
Mr WILLIAMS: Like at The Advertiser—all those people who are covered by employers who manage their own scheme as self-insured? I advise members that 36 per cent of the working men and women in this state work outside WorkCover; they work for self-insured employers—36 per cent. They happen to operate under the exact same legislation as those who operate within the WorkCover scheme—the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. The exact same act applies to those employers as it applies to all those employers who come under WorkCover. One has to ask the question: where is the problem?
Ms Chapman: What is the difference?
Mr WILLIAMS: What is the difference? Where is the problem? How can the Treasurer claim that the problem is with the legislation when one group—the self-insured—can operate with that legislation, yet WorkCover cannot. That is the nub of the problem. It is at least 4˝ years of denial; and I am reading the document that was leaked out of the caucus yesterday and the notes that were given to the backbenchers who, I understand, were not very happy with what they have been told. All the points that have been made here are points which I have been raising in this house and about which I asked the current minister at least 2˝ years ago. I know that my predecessor in the role as the shadow spokesman for industrial relations some years ago asked similar questions about the return to work rates and the difference in the average levy rate in South Australia.
What has happened is that this government has been in denial for so long and it has just allowed this problem to grow, when the reality is that it was the Minister for Industrial Relations who gave the instructions to WorkCover that have caused most of the problems. It is this Minister for Industrial Relations who had WorkCover operating, and we have heard from the Treasurer today how wonderful the current CEO is.
WorkCover operated for about 12 months without a CEO, and the minister said, 'That's not a problem, it's all operating hunky-dory, it's all really good down there at WorkCover.' I am really looking forward to hearing what some of the backbenchers in the Labor ranks have to say about this. I wonder what the member for Florey will say. I am really looking forward to a contribution from the member for Reynell; and I am really looking forward to hearing what the member for Taylor will say, because she quite often takes me to task and tells the house that I am anti-unionist and anti-worker. I am looking forward to a contribution from the member for Taylor and other backbenchers on the government side of the house.
I am wondering how many Labor backbenchers have conteplated on voting against Rann and Co over this WorkCover reforms. I would say it must have entered some of their minds. Unfortunately they are in a no win sitaution, listen to Sugar Daddy Foley and co. or risk the aftermath of this decision at the next election. Remember this effects ALL workers (majority of voters) and their rights and protection of not losing their livelyhood.
Posted by Just a thought in the back of my mind at 4:59 AM, 29/2/2008
Did anybody notice Claytons recommendations on redemptions. It states this will happen in special circumstances
"there will be ongoing weekly benefits of $30 a week or less"
Doesnt this contradict that you have to be total incapacitated to be on the system longer than 2 and a half years.
If one is totally incapacitated, they would be earning 80% of their wage. Who earns $30 a week??????????
By July 2008, there will be a drastic reduction of injured workers on the scheme under the reforms. Do the current Case Managers and Rehabilitation consultants transfer to the commenwealth (centrelink) because thats where the injured workers will be heading.
Looks like the cash cow for these companies are about to be reduced. Long term injured workers who have to be totally incapacitated will not be requiring return to work or rehabilitation. If the 0-130 weeks claimants are the type to return to their former workplace.
Just to remind evrybody on the subject of the ABC programme "Stateline". Julia Davison quoted as saying there are 32,000 injured workers on WorkCover. A total mis-leading heap of spin. When I contacted Stateline and gave them the figures from the WorkCover website, they decided to change the transcript. I just hope the wrongdoers that created this disaster will soon realise what they have done.
Mr Griffiths said given the domestic equity market had fallen 18.3 per cent since the mid-year Budget review, this meant a loss of income for WorkCover of $64.1 million, Motor Accident Commission of $29.6 million and for Funds SA Superannuation liabilities of $549 million.
"It may well be, given the nature of the stock market, that we have had a negative return from Funds SA. We do not know that yet. It is too early. WorkCover is in the same position."
So Businesses finally know where their premiums have been going?
Posted by Dont say we didnt warn you! at 2:05 PM, 29/2/2008
I noted some weeks ago a post on this site about Workcover's exposure to the share market.
Its scary to think that this problem was predicted weeks ago and we now read about it in the advertiser.
Seems WorkCover won't let up on their suggestion that there have been threats made against Politicians, WorkCover Staff and EML staff on this blog.
As one who has participated in this blog for some time I totally reject this scurrilous attempt by the WorkCover spin doctors to discredit those who dare to speak out against them.
There was a suggestion that a protest be held at the homes of Senior Management, “like the one held by Radio Rentals Staff” but it was decided not to go ahead with it because WorkCover and EML tend to get nasty and vindictive!
There have also been several posts, including several by myself, expressing fear that with the incidence of suicide for those trapped on WorkCover being 6 times greater than the general population, that one day, one of these despairing souls will choose a very public suicide and target those they perceive to be their tormentors, a terrible outcome that we see all too often elsewhere.
Article from: The Advertiser
MICHAEL OWEN, POLITICAL REPORTER
February 29, 2008 11:30am
TREASURER Kevin Foley has been accused of poor judgment on investments after the Opposition revealed the state faces losses of more than $832 million.
Mr Foley, who does not personally make any decisions about where to invest taxpayers' money, is refusing to rule out rises in motor registration and third party insurance premiums because of a meltdown in equity markets.
"If the question now is whether we will have to increase compulsory third party premiums, my guess is yes," he told Parliament this week.
"However, what that increase will be is factor to be determined."
Opposition finance spokesman Steven Griffiths said the Treasurer's Budget papers revealed a risk to state finances whenever there is just a 1 per cent fall in equity markets.
Mr Griffiths said given the domestic equity market had fallen 18.3 per cent since the mid-year Budget review, this meant a loss of income for WorkCover of $64.1 million, Motor Accident Commission of $29.6 million and for Funds SA Superannuation liabilities of $549 million.
"The losses potentially total $832.7 million and may have an effect on the Government's budget surplus announced by the Treasurer on November 20 last year as $209 million," he said.
But Mr Foley warned the Opposition against trying to "scaremonger".
"That is the nature of investment markets," he said.
"It may well be, given the nature of the stock market, that we have had a negative return from Funds SA. We do not know that yet. It is too early. WorkCover is in the same position."
But Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said motorists must not bear the brunt of Mr Foley's "poor judgement on investments" just to protect the AAA credit rating.
"I fear the Treasurer is again lining up motorists in a desperate attempt to plug the hole in his Budget and in keeping his prized AAA credit rating intact," he said.
"With higher petrol prices draining family and business finances, motorists cannot afford to pay more taxes."
It would be nice to see how many decisions made by the "new" board actually failed. Minter Ellison as sole legal provider, EML and removing the advacacy unit would be a good start. i have noticed the report wants to reinstate a "Rise" department again. What ever happened to them. Oh the private Rehabilitation consultants took on their role. Another Fail Mark i would suggest.
I was watching Stateline and I think Michael Wright was on there, I am unsure as I have never seen him before to identify him. I am also unsure of what he said is in the legislative bill. Have to wait for the transcript.
One thing for sure is that it will be a lawyers paradise trying to put the square blocks in round holes.
What constitutes a small business? If Michael Wright said was correct and a business with over 30 employees would need a rehabilitation officer. Then how much would this cost EMPLOYERS?
I am sure Peter Vaughn would enjoy telling businesses that there is some good news and some bad news. Good news is that your levies will be reduced, bad news is that you are forced to employ a partially incapacitated non productive worker overseen by a rehabilitation officer.
"The board of WorkCover has sought to address the deterioration in its financial circumstances in several ways. The most important to date is the decision to engage Employers Mutual as sole claims agent from 1 July 2006, replacing the four previous claim managers".
I didnt know there was poverty in NSW. $364 a week, and another thing if South Australia step down is 80% and is higher than NSW which is 90%.????
Is it Hansard or what Michael Wright actually said?
Hansard
"These payments will be made at 100 per cent of the workers pre-injury average weekly earnings for 13 weeks and at 80 per cent thereafter. This 80 per cent is higher than the rates paid in New South Wales and Victoria, the two jurisdictions with schemes most comparable with our own. New South Wales does go down to 90 per cent, but the figure that they pay is something like about, from memory, $364.
I must agree with having medical panels assess you for capacity. This will take away the responsibility from treating specialist. I guess a few early cases where aggrevation caused by returning to work early will sort this one out.
How really can WorkCover survive when it places the rehabilitation and management of Injured Workers Compensation claims in the hands of a private insurer such as EML.
The contract is not a fixed price agreement and obviously as a big company they will be milking every cent out of WorkCover.
Perhaps the board is too gutless to face up to Minister Wright and others and face the music with the fact that they while things look good on the face of their reports the truth is that there has been massive bungling and a multitude of poor decisions that have led to the current mess that employers and injured employees and their families will now have to fix.( At least the lawyers and rehab and medicos will not suffer, they already got their gold from the pot)
Spotlight on HIH’s WorkCover Link
Failed insurer HIH’s role in the push to privatise the state’s WorkCover scheme should be referred to the Royal Commission into the nation’s largest ever corporate collapse.
NSW Labor Council secretary Michael Costa has made the call, saying it was only trade union pressure that prevented the Carr Government going down a track that would have cost the WorkCover scheme a further $800 million.
Privatisation of the workers compensation scheme was a key recommendation of a 1997 inquiry into the workers compensation system by KPMG's Richard Grellman.
After the report was handed down, the Carr Government placed privatization into legislation to take affect from October 1998.
But concerns raised through the Work Compensation Advisory Council forced the government to amend that legislation, taking out the enactment date to give the Minister discretion on when privatization should occur.
Throughout this period, members of the Advisory Council have told Workers Online they were lobbied furiously by the insurance industry, most notably HIH and FAI, with Ray Williams taking a personal role.
"It appears HIH was banking on getting a slice of the WorkCover business," a source has told Workers Online. "We are just lucky we convinced the government to delay privatization."
The Labor Council is calling on the Carr Government to repeal the legislation giving the NSW Minister for Industrial Relations the right to privatize the workers compensation scheme
Costa says the repeal of private underwriting should be added to amendments to the workers compensation legislation going before the State Parliament in the current session of Parliament.
<http://workers.labor.net.au/97/print_index.html>
Posted by Privatization-more funding for the boys club. at 8:08 AM, 1/3/2008
It comes down to being stubborn, they reject redemptions because it will create a culture. The only way you can get a redemption is if you are earning less than $30 or over 55. If you were earning $30 a week wouldnt that consitute you are working unless or you are been paid 80 Cents an hour.
"As a consequence of this amendment to section 42, where a redemption of a liability to make weekly payments is proposed, an agreement for that redemption cannot be made unless 1 or more of the following requirements are satisfied:
· the rate of weekly payments to be redeemed does not exceed $30 (indexed);
· the worker has attained the age of 55 years and the Corporation has determined that he or she has no current work capacity;"
I can now understand what you mean, why take a redemption at $30 a week.
"There is no entitlement under section 43 if the worker's impairment is less than 5 per cent or, in the case of a permanent psychiatric impairment, less than 10 per cent".
I just wonder how many injured workers over the last number of years who can now claim for psychiatric impairment where this was prohibited.
We must thank all the case managers and rehabilitation consultants for their efforts in aggrevating most workers psychiatric impairment.
When is Mr Wright going to table the Legislation Bill. The one he read in parliament on thursday has so many flaws in it, me thinks its barganing bait.
The reforms:
1) They were requested by the board in Nov 2006. Why should a board be paying for Clayton to do a review of the legislation?
This is something that should come from parliament.
2) Clayton has not acted impartially if he has been paid by the board. ( this is a very contentious issue in NSW and Victoria where they are holding continuing enquiries into payments for favours and other corrupt payments and corruption of the government in general.
For example: Federally there is now a push for political parties not to receive donations over $1000. How is it that Clayton has done a review and was paid $850,000 to reform the legislation? Obviously there was some communication for the price of the deal and some idea of what he was going to propose. Look also at SA unions deal and others. Plenty of money changing hands.
3) Has the Workcover board ever considered simply changing the section 36 and section 38 provisions to enable workers to pushed off the system by negotiating redemptions before conciliation officers or resolving them in the tribunal?
4) To bring in a system where workers can be kicked off the system with no common law rights is a manipulation of the act that was never intended. Common Law has been around for thousands of years. Ruthless and unethical employers will not take responsibility for injured workers and will continue to make their money out of other peoples misfortune (injury) This needs to be seriously considered to ensure that employers are accountable and can not make their fortunes out of the blood and personal physical cost of injured workers.
Why should legislation now take the place of Common law? This is denying fairness to injured workers and any opportunity to resolve matters without interference by the different arms of government.
The Parliament make the laws, they should be reforming the legislation not the board as they are simply serving themselves in changing the legislation and keeping themselves in the top spot.They will simply sap another few years out of Workcover and a few more million dollars in handouts for them and their mates.
If they were so clever and managing everything so well how come every one of their reforms has not worked?
Including stopping redemptions?
This will be just another change they make which will not fix the mess.
"Oh but they are doing a great job" says Michael Wright.
A great job of what?
Increasing the state debt, Poor investments, ruining peoples lives more than they already are with a system that often causes more psychological torment than the injury itself.
There are two sides to every story.... I know that being on work cover can be hard, I watch this process every day. We to are frustraited with 'the system', the limitations it puts on us and how we handle claims and rehab. No system is perfect, there are huge problems... these new chages may help, there are some really good parts that are not being 'advertised' by the media that may help. To be honest we don't know how to solve the problem, we are feeling just as swept up in this situation as you all are. From our point of view we ask that you be patient with us, help us by keeping in contact with us and telling us what is going on with you - we do like to help were we can, try not to yell at us or threaten us, it is scary to have security in our office and going home with some of us just to make sure we are safe. We are understaffed, under resourced, there are many that are very new to the industry. The biggest problem we face is the speed at which experienced Case Managers are leaving the industry... what is workcover and EML going to do about retaining good staff who can help to sort this situation out?
My advise? keep copies of all accounts sent in for payment, fax them and call to make sure we have them, doubble check all appointments the day before, talk honestly with your case manager and rehab consultant about what you want and see how they can accomodate this, ask questions about how things work, the more information you have about why we do what we do the better you may feel about us....
Why would Stateline release the transcript without Mr Wrights comments included.
IAN HENSCHKE: WorkCover this week became a centre stage issue, along with its $800 million plus unfunded liability. Labor insiders fear it could be more than a billion dollars by the next election unless something is done, but the something the Government is proposing has infuriated the union movement. In a moment we'll speak with the Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright but first this report from Simon Royal.
MARK TELFER, INJURED WORKER: I want to get off it as quick as I can and I have wanted to get it from the very start. I've been fearful of sort of be left on the scrap heap, I suppose, which I fear may well be happening to people in the next 12 months if things go through.
NATALIE MORRIS AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION: The workers are the victims of workplace injury and they are being made victims a second time around by Rann's laws.
TONY KERIN, AUSTRALIAN LAWYERS ALLIANCE: I think there'd be a number of disgruntled injured workers in South Australia. It should be a vote loser. It should be a vote loser.
SIMON ROYAL: Mark Telfer is is at the very pointy end of the WorkCover debate. In March 2006, the former machine operator injured his back. And it still hasn't righted itself sufficiently for him to go back to that job.
MARK TELFER: Pulled a muscle in my back originally, I thought, and found out that it was a little bit worse, a couple of tears and bulges which I'm hoping will eventually get better, but in trying to rehabilitate, I keep aggravating it, and that's the biggest problem.
A couple of months ago I got really depressed about the whole situation, and went back into the work force, as I went driving a truck. I did that because I was more or less just sick of the pressure of what was going on. Two or three weeks of doing that, I was back on all the drugs I was taking for my pain before, and led to me ending up in hospital with a blood pressure problem. So I've... I'm back to square one again.
SIMON ROYAL: In many ways, Mark Telfer's story demonstrates what both sides of WorkCover are on about. The Government argues that after two years, South Australia's non-return to work rate is double that of New South Wales and Victoria, whilst levies are amongst the nation's highest.
It's proposing to cut income support by 20 per cent after 13 weeks. After two and a half years, if workers knock back suitable work, their payments are cut altogether. Mark Telfer agrees WorkCover is sick, but he doesn't agree with the cure.
MARK TELFER: There's got to be ways of getting back to work quicker. I mean, just seems to be hold ups all the way as to which way you're going to head and to get okayed by the insurer and the insurer changes their rehabilitation officers... I mean, I'm on my fifth one now.
TONY KERIN: The current Act has as one of its aims, if I can call it that, rehabilitation is one of its firm aims. That's an appropriate one and every group would be agreed about that. Rehabilitation, unfortunately, is very difficult to implement and it hasn't really worked in the 20 odd years of the Act.
Tony Kerin is the State head of the Australian lawyers alliance and he argues Labor's broken a key commitment with its WorkCover changes. He believes parts of the legislation are retrospective, affecting those already on WorkCover.
TONY KERIN: It's very unfair. You give advice to someone on a certain development and how it's gonna run and of course it's changed overnight. In effect, if this Bill came in in its current form, the law would change from one thing one day to completely different the next, and many workers would be disadvantaged.
SIMON ROYAL: And that brings us back to Mark Telfer. His two and a half years on WorkCover will be up soon, but Natalie Morris from the Australian Workers Union says his situation illustrates a wider problem. Both the union and Mark Telfer say there's a stand-off between WorkCover and his employer. WorkCover insists the business has light duties he can to. The employer says no. Mark Telfer says he's stuck in the middle.
MARK TELFER: The company says my job is back there in the factory, which is a job that I'm told I can't do. I originally went into the office as an assistant production planner. For four hours a day. To work strengthen and things like that, to get back into the work force. Um... under the new management came in, February last year, and within a couple of days told me there was no work for me. They were rejigging the whole place.
NATALIE MORRIS: His situation is exceptional. But we do regularly see employers that refuse to provide duties to our members and to injured workers in general.
SIMON ROYAL: So it's not an unusual situation for WorkCover and an employer to be in dispute as to whether there's a job there for not?
NATALIE MORRIS: Yes, that's correct.
SIMON ROYAL: The company declined Stateline's request to comment. Mark Telfer is now studying to improve his chances of landing administrative work. But the question is whether anger over WorkCover changes means a few Labor MPs will eventually join him in the job queue.
Is it a vote changer for you?
MARK TELFER: It definitely will be for me. Maybe there will be independent Labor candidates or, or ... or ... compassionate capitalists I suppose (laughs) Rather than what we're seeing on the other side at the moment.
SIMON ROYAL: You don't want to vote for any of the buggers, do you?
The problem is easily fixed.
Bring back redemptions.
Why should an injured worker be left to rot on WorkCover?
The management of the individuals claims etc will keep on growing, as the population grows the number on WorkCover will continue to grow.
Injured Workers should be given some dignity in life.
Let a court or tribunal decide how injured they are.
Let the courts or tribunal decide how much they get paid out.
Let a court or tribunal decide if an injured worker has breached mutuality and should have their pay cut.
What about giving the board and those at WorkCover a few lessons on what its like to be an injured worker.
Let them and the politicians take the pay cuts when they are injured at work.
Let them also be accountable for the mess they have developed which legislation is not going to fix.
Perhaps the government should make the board and the WorkCover employees pay for their mismanagement and make them fix the mess before they all desert their posts.
Sack Wollongong Council: ICAC Commissioner
Forrmer Wollongong City Council town planner Beth Morgan leaves the ICAC inquiry
'Systemic corruption': Former council planner Beth Morgan said she had sex with developers while assessing their applications. (AAP: Dean Lewins)
The commissioner of an inquiry into Wollongong Council has recommended it be sacked after he said 11 days of hearings at the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) had found evidence of systemic corruption.
Commissioner Jerrold Cripps QC has made the recommendation after receiving a submission from the counsel assisting, Noel Hemmings QC, outlining various instances of corrupt activities by councillors and former staff involved in the sex and bribery scandal.
Mr Hemmings told the inquiry that breaches of conduct by councillors and former staff members, the undeclared exchange of gifts and leaks of confidential information all constituted corrupt conduct.
He said cosy relationships between developers, councillors and council staff, including former planner Beth Morgan, contributed to that corrupt conduct.
Labor’s ham-fisted attempt to fix WorkCover has embarrassed its Premier.
On the same day he told his MPs workers entitlements needed to be cut, it was revealed in parliament he had railed against less onerous cuts in 1995.
Caucus briefing notes, leaked to Opposition MPs, show Mr Rann wants injured workers to take a 20 per cent pay cut after 13 weeks on WorkCover.
Yet in 1995 he said a proposed 15 per cent cut after 26 weeks would; “condemn people who want to work and their families to a lifetime of poverty and dependence”.
In media releases at the time, Mr Rann described the measure as “draconian” which would exact a “human toll”.
The then Labor Opposition described the 1995 changes as being “hard to imagine how anyone could draft a more vicious and uncaring piece of legislation than this. Effectively every clause is unacceptable”.
State Liberal Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith described the Government as being in total chaos.
“First they were going to introduce changes on Tuesday, but Caucus was split,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.
“Then it became Wednesday and its maybe Thursday,” he said.
“Labor MPs are openly whingeing in the corridors about the way their Leader has rammed the changes through.
“It’s taken them a year to organise the review and they are still arguing about its findings.
“In six years they have turned what the Clayton Report describes as a healthy and financially stable scheme into a financial disaster.
“It is hurting workers, it is hurting business and it is shattering our State’s reputation.
“Mike Rann and Michael Wright should never be forgotten.”
Look where a strong work ethic gets you today!!!!!!!!
Before i was the victim of a severe work injury, i had as strong a work ethic as anybody could have. I had never had one single day off, i always put the job first, was never late, always started early and finished yet and then i become the victim of a severe work injury and am naive enough to think that workcover will after me, WRONG.
I am sure all the injured workers who post on this blog have just a strong a work ethic as what i had and always put their job first, that is until we fall victim of a severe work injury. Look where having a strong work ethic gets you today???????? Instead of getting looked after you get thrown out into the street like a piece of trash, which is exactly what this new legislation will allow them to do.
To think i was once one of the best workers my company had and now this is the payback i get???? I did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong except put my job first and have a strong work ethic and this is what i get for it?????? It is very hard to not become bitter with life when this kind of thing happens to someone who HAS DONE NOTHING TO DESERVE IT, but i really am trying to keep on top of things. This new legislation though will be the final blow to all us injured workers, who are ALREADY suffering enough. When you think about it, throwing someone out into the street and leaving them to rot is the same kind of mentality as taking someone out the back door and shooting them, which is exactly what gets done to injured horses. It is SICKENING that we are being treated like this.
I posted this in a previous thread which i now worked out is outdated. So i will post here-
I worked for a major medicolegal reports company for 4 yrs in Melb, until my conscience got the better of me. the majority of doctors who work for these companies are biased and in the pockets of the insurers. They will rarely do plaintiff work. They get block bookings by insurers. If you subpoenaed their reports you will see that 99% of their reports are in favour of the insurers. When they do support liability they under-report on the severity of the disability and symptoms.
I would love to list names, but would this get me into trouble? Can you start a separate thread where people talk about their experiences with particular doctors?
Another thing...the practice we had at our medicolegal company is that case managers would often call us and tell us which claimants were under surveillance. On the day of the appointment the claimant would come to reception, and they would be shown to a waiting room. Then a private investigator would come and ask the receptionist to discretely point to or describe the particular claimant in the waiting room.
A complete breach of privacy....... as i said these reporting companies and their doctors are on the payrolls of insurance companies. I wish somebody would subpoena their payslips and you will see some of them making as much as $10,000 per day from the insurers... and they never take referrals from plaintiffs.
Posted by INSURANCE COMPANIES SUCK at 9:59 PM, 3/3/2008
reply to above comment "there are two sides to every story"
This state government has take the worse measurements ever in a knee jerk reaction into severely amending the current legislation. What this has caused is Injured workers have now nothing to fear in submitting on how their claims have been mis-managed in order to protect themselves as they have been victimised. These submissions can now be made to the unions and the state Liberal and Labor members, To Anonymous from the comment "there are two sides to every story", most workers do understand you are working under instructions from mis-management, and as there there are a small majority of workers taking advantage of the system, I believe there are also the same percantage case managers and rehabilitation consultants that are non holistic in their approach.
Well Mr Rann maybe all us injured workers should move interstate and remove your workcover problems I guess from now on I'll be voteing for the Liberal party like so many others will be. I've been on workcover now for just over 2 years no fault of my own. So far have had 3 operations maybe another. I have a partial disbility now I cant go back to my previous job, i'd love to have another job but with my disability when I apply for a position I dont usually get an interview and the one I did they said that if I can pass the required medical I will be considered. Well what am I supposed to do I still have a family and mortgage.
Jail for peeping Toms but Workcover Investigators are exempt?
Jail, fine for 'upskirt' sex pictures and Peeping Toms
Article from: The Advertiser
NICK HENDERSON, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
March 05, 2008 12:10am
PEEPING Toms who secretly photograph people in sexual acts or undressing will be jailed for up to two years under a Bill to be introduced today in Parliament.
Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the proposed law targeted "the raincoat brigade" who are expected to use increasingly advanced technology to photograph unwitting victims.
The Bill seeks to outlaw the practice of "upskirting" – taking photographs under women's clothing without their knowledge.
Those who commit an offence under the new law face a maximum two years in jail or a fine of up to $10,000.
"Thankfully, there have been few cases reported so far in South Australia but we have seen cases interstate and overseas," Mr Atkinson said.
"Indeed, in some circumstances, such as in Japan, they even warn commuters on busy, crowded public transport systems to be wary of the practice.
"It's fair to assume that the raincoat brigade here will seek to satisfy their urges by exploiting more sophisticated mobile technology as it becomes available."
Mr Atkinson said the Bill would ensure police had the necessary powers to deal with people committing these acts.
The proposed laws will make it illegal to photograph a person who is undressed without their knowledge and where a person is using a toilet or engaging in sexual acts not normally conducted in public.
Mr Atkinson said a person could not legally give their permission to be photographed in these situations if they were under 16-years-old, mentally incapacitated or deceived in to giving permission.
It will also be illegal to film a person's "private region" without their knowledge.
A person who distributes photos obtained illegally under the new law would also be penalised.
Mr Atkinson said the new laws would exempt licenced investigation agents who are working to obtain evidence and would not impact on the news media.
"It is not the intention of this new law to prevent free and fair reporting of events by the media," he said.
Posted by Dirt deeds done dirt cheap at 10:29 PM, 4/3/2008
So private investigators will film injured workers having sex. What about the innocent bystander who the worker is having sex with? What about my children plaing in my back yard with no clothes on in summer?
At least this shows how low WorkCover are allowed to go.
It is now official that injured workers are treated like criminals. A letter was released to the public today from a worker who was warned not to talk to fellow injured workers. In criminal law this is called consorting.
To the tools from WorkCover and EML that are pouring over this site trying to find something, anything they can use to villify anyone for speaking the truth, I have a threat, no a promise for you.
As long as you clowns keep crossing the line and abusing injured workers, we will keep making your arrogance public.
We will support each other and we will not be bullied by inept Insurance Clerks and callow spin doctors. We will not be silenced.
The true shame is that you fools are so willing to waste resources on your pointless witch hunts yet you won't spend a single moment pondering how you made such a mess of this scheme!
At the beginning of the WorkCover scheme there was a creative tension between all stakeholders including the injured worker and for many years. It was not the best scheme nor was it the worst.
Over a period of time those founders, those innovators who were prepared to lead, make discussions and be accountable for them, moved on. Over a period of time they were replaced by staff who can only work within a compliant environment. They are not able to exercise lateral thinking or prepared to lead. They took the high ground and innovation went out the door because it was threatening to them.
Rather than advocate how best to manage change for the betterment of all stakeholders they advocate changes to satisfy their deficit need to develop rules that only they can operate from, at the expense of others; whether it is political or financial.
There are pockets of experienced staff out there that have a demonstrated history that they can make a difference but who are not in a position to do so. They have, and are being, suppressed and are very much victims, not by the WorkCover scheme but, from those who have ascended to decision making levels in the hierarchy.
It looks like we will pay for their lack of managerial and personality trait deficits.
I totally agree with PhilM that the "snoops" are treading a fine line. You have gotten away with so much over the last few years with your unessesary tactics and it will come back to bite you in the "you know where" No doubt every case manager and rehabilitation consultant must be on notice because when the bomb shell hits (figure of speech), your companies will not protect you.
The $600 Million available for payouts Mr Roberts stated WorkCover had in 2003 may have gone in the sub-prime overseas investments, great investing from the board now that the US economy is slipping into recession.
May I add in 2003 Michael Wright gave instructions to pursue more return to work and retraining instead of redeeming. (lets keep the money and invest)
I had injuries to back upper lower and legs plus carpell tunnel years before that i never had fixed
after going onto workcover and being under the impression that i would be back to work quickly i have since also had my shoulders stuffed up under rehab more probs with legs and have been told that my pain is caused not by back but by being excessively obese i am 5ft7 and now 95 kilos before injuries 80-85 kilos
no blame was placed on the culprits per say
rehabs also placed me in so called work-trials where there was no post trial employment and some were putting my injuries under strain had to have my doctor intervene on two occasions to get me out of them as rehabs wouldnt remove me
remember rehabs get a bonus if they find you a placement (work) so not only do they get paid to do their job but also extra for finding injured workers work (good job if you can get it)
before the injury i had strong work ethics working on average 120 hours per week this is not taken into account nor is the fact that before the injury i had never been out of work since i was 16
i have had rehabs that are to put it mildly inadequate (or should that be incompetent) in their roles one i had taken of my file when it came out that he was passing false info to insurance company saying he was doing things when wasnt again no penallties
i also had one that after meeting once wrote a report that i was angry (duh) aggressive and hard to deal with all because he put wrong info on file and i informed him (politely)
it has always been our word against those in so called controll
i was lucky that i was backed up by my employer at the start of the whole process
i now also have a mental issue all caused by the system and health probs caused by the medicines that get rammed down our mouths
i have had letters sent out to me saying i had been working i went into melt down but then they said it was sent to wrong person again no action against incompetent case managers
my latest case manager untill recently was constantly ringing me up for no real reason this was really ticking me off
my whole case has been a shambles i am deemed totally incapacitated
my phychiatrist agrees with new policies (some shrink)
now to get to basics
to fix the system they could easily fire most of the workcover board staff and employees as they mostly only have token roles anyway besides Worksafe SA does most if not all investigating into workplace accidents ect
and all cases are handled by EML anywway
also the practice of sending people to countless doctors untill they get the answers that EML want should be stopped perhaps two docs reports at most
i have seen docs that are rude keep you waiting and then do very quick assessments but their reports claim X amount of time spent with patient and have answers to questions from now EML that were not looked at at time of consult
another thing that hasnt been raised is the fact that this also effects employers and contractors as contractors have to provide own workcover where will it leave them and lets see what happens when an employer gets injured and tries to claim ie an employer who works as say construction via contacts
so the bussiness SA campain is flawed
but our premier will as usual back them
also look at EMLs history in eastern states all that is happening now was on the cards when they took over the insurance for workcover
mike rann made claims that new legislation would not effect current claimants but this has been changed in the latest copy of the bill
my lawyer has advised me to take a payout that will leave me financially in strife as have had to morgage house two or three times after injury
so i either take it or hold out and maybe loose everything when they take me off the system
all because the system is not held responsible for its own mismanagement and i was dumb enough to get injured working my back side off to make a life for myself and family
one last thing i have seen a lot of people on the system who claim to be injured yet run around kicking balls going to epic movie screenings ect why are these people not targeted more i have come across them when doing so called rehab courses ie COPER now theres a waste of money if you dont do as they say regardless of your injuries then you get bad reports
there are a number of ways to fix the system without taking from those already in hardship but this will mean taking from the top working down and this method never occurs
just me voicing my oppinions
and thanks for this blog and to a certain person that pointed me to it she will know who she is someone i have respect for
also forgot to mention that apparently with new changes there will be no process for appeals in place as there is now
lawyers will not have any powers to question reports ect and you will go before a three doctor panel all chosen by EML who have the basically only and final say and if they claim you can do one hours work per week goodbye your off the system
build some bridges people..move on for your own sake and that of your family.
I was injured at work 2 years ago. I required major spinal surgery but I got through it. My recovery took a long time. I didn't have fantastic support from my employer or WorkCover but what I did have was support from my family and friends.
I took responsibility of my own rehab, did my best to get my life back on track because that's what was best for me and my family. I concentrated on the future and not the past.
I've read so much hatred for the system and WorkCover and EML and you know what, you're letting them win just with your attitudes and your actions.
Think about it, if you put as much time and effort into taking responsibility of your rehab as you do in to being bitter and trying to fight the system you might actually get to a better place than where you are now. Your family will be happier and respect you more for taking up their offers of help. You can really move on with your life.
Letting WorkCover consume your life is sad. I beg of you, think about it, move on, it's not worth the trouble. You can only win against the system if you do your best to help yourself and get off it.
Don't get me wrong, it's not easy, but whatever you do, stop wasting your time and effort on hating WorkCover and put all that energy into something good for you. Yeah ok you were injured but there's people in the world who are much worse off than you so get better and get on with your life.
You wont regret it and neither will your friends and family.
It is wonderful to hear from an injured worker that survived the system 'You Can Do It'.
It is wonderful that you had the strength and support to survive the constant bullying and harrassment, the callous disregard for your rights and contempt for your situation by everchanging inept case clerks. It is wonderful that the physical injury you suffered healed and you were able to move on.
You are but one of the 99.5 percent of injured Workers per annum that can and do make it in spite of the scheme and you should be extremely proud that you did so.
What however about the few that can't? What about the ones that are living with more than a physical injury that can heal? What about those that will simply never be able to function in the workplace again? What about the one half of one percent of injured Workers that simply can't?
Who is going to build the bridge for them? Who is going to carry them over it? Who is going to support them on the other side?
It is these workers that deserve your support and not the mocking of the lucky ones that made it!
Thats right every worker can do it without the help of workcover.
Perhaps they would have more time to dedicate tgo getting themselves on the right track and would not get so depressed if so many hundreds of thousands of dollars were not spent harassing them, forcing them to multiple medical appointments to see if just one doctor can overlook the injury and say there is nothing wrong with you, forcing them to attend multiple reviews and what is more forcing them to spend their own money in defending themselvs against the corrupted system thats called Workcover.
Lets be real here.
Every injured worker has the right to some dignity in life.
Every injured worker has a right to compensation.
Why should Workcover, the board and its employees all profit out of the injured workers misfortune?
Mr Clayton forgot to tell everyone that he was engaged by the board to write his report. He did not openly say how much he was paid to say what he did.
And how can he say with any certainty that the system will turn around??
Surely Mr Carter and all of his monkeys with all of their financial experience could have put some sort of changes in place to make the scheme turn around without resorting to throwing thousands of injured workers off the system with no compensation.
Perhaps you can do it would work if Workcover managed injured workers claims properly and did not target injured workers for rehabilitating themselves and speaking out about the poor management of the system.
And by the way..there is some positives about Workcover...But as yet nobody has been able to document them. Perhaps these occasions that there is something positive comes out of Workcover are so few and far between that they are of no significance compared to all of the negatives and the ongoing poor financial management
Great comment, I have attempted my own rehab, I see a psychologist without WorkCover knowing as I am claiming through medicare. But as soon as WorkCover find out they start to infiltrate, influence and bully. get real, it does happen.
I totally agree with "get on with it", an injured worker cannot rely on WorkCover for rehabilitation and return to work, I think the Clayton report clearly defines that. It is the entitlements whilst being rehabilitated that WorkCover has any factor in many cases. My GP also put me on a mental health plan through a federal subsidy without WorkCovers knowledge simply because WorkCover rehabilitation just DOES NOT WORK. They are job seekers thats all.
What a shame that the Union Movement chose to ignore the opportunity to show some solidarity with injured Workers and attend the Forum.
Kris Hanna told the Forum that incredibly Janet Giles does not think the union movement will organise a rally?
One can only wonder who made the decision for Janet to resign from the WorkCover Board and if it was for Board strategic reasons rather than to support the workers?
When the fight is won, please don’t try to stand beside the victors and claim any credit.
I am staggered at the popular urban myth that has been generated by WorkCover apologist for so long that it has now become a modern-day truth and accepted wisdom; namely, that WorkCover Corporations’ so-called unfunded liability is the result of injured workers rorting the system. I am particularly disappointed with Dr Dean Jaensch’s poor understanding of WorkCover Corporation’s options for dealing with its fiscal problems and his unsupportable suggestion that injured worker rorts are the cause of the problem (The Advertiser, 5/3/08).
In the mid 1990’s it was reported to the WorkCover Board that the suspected rate of fraud at that time was under 2%, whilst the actual rate was under 1%. WorkCover Corporation’s own records reveal the actual rate of fraud between 1998 to 2007 by injured workers is 68 and 33 by employers. With 25,000 claims per year, we are talking about under 0.005% actual rate of fraud by injured workers. We also know that hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars have been spent on legal and surveillance fees, chasing this 0.005% of claimants.
WorkCover’s own newsletters have revealed that some employers are known to engage in the “cottage industry” of rorting incentive schemes like the Bonus Safety Achiever Award. The Fraud Section’s excuse for not prosecuting these employers is that the Scheme provides a “No Fault” system for employers and the main reason many more employers are not prosecuted for gross breaches of Occupational Health and Safety.
Increasing levies and minimizing payments is the only solution we have been fed by corporate apologists, but the rapid erosion of benefits to injured workers and employer’s alike has not been working for almost two decades of rot within the system. So perhaps it is time to do what every struggling family in a low-income household is forced to do when the income exceeds expenditure – reorganise the finances, pay the bills first, spend frugally on the housekeeping and, most importantly, don’t squander or gamble with money you don’t have.
No mocking intended PhilM, only my attempt at motivational support.
I offer 100% support to those who are so injured they can't function properly. On one condition. They need to want to help themselves first.
It's a no brainer that if you were injured at work you deserve to be properly compensated by WorkCover and EML should treat you with the simple respect you deserve as a human being.
Who's going to carry those people over that bridge you ask?
Well, I have to ask, do they even want to get over the bridge?
If they want to be on the other side they are going to carry themselves over the bridge with the support of their treating dr's and their family and friends and obviously not with the support they deserve from WorkCover.
Is it worth giving up the fight for what you think you deserve?
I wasn't so sure either but now, I think it's more than worth it if it means I never have to open another envelope with an insulting letter or receive another phone call from a 20yo case manager, who knows less about the act than what I do, and most importantly if it means that I can spend quality time with my family without even mentioning WorkCover.
GREG KELTON
STATE EDITOR
WORKERS' compensation liabilities have topped $1.3 billion - and the state Opposition wants two senior public servants to explain why.
WorkCover, which the Government is attempting to reform to cut costs, has an unfunded liability of $844 million.
However, the Opposition says it has been told the Government, which acts as a self-insurer and is not part of WorkCover, has compensation Liabilities of $400 million which, when added to those of WorkCover and losses of more than $61 million on the equity market, give a total of $1.3 billion.
According to the last annual report of the Premier's Department, the outstanding liabilities for public sector workers' compensation was $358 million at June 30, 2007.
The blowout in unfunded liabilities at WorkCover has prompted the Government to move to cut worker benefits and institute other changes in a bid to rein in costs.
The Opposition is examining the issue through its Industrial Relations Portfolio Advisory Committee. It has written to Premier's Department chief executive Warren McCann and Public Employment Commissioner Jeff Walsh inviting them to appear before the committee.
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said that if they declined the invitation, they could be obliged to appear before the Upper House's powerful Budget and Finance Committee.
Mr Hamilton-Smith accused the Government of attempting to cover up the full extent of the losses. He said the Opposition was "deeply concerned with the blowout". Mr Hamilton-Smith said the Government liability was just $226 million when the Liberals lost office in 2002. Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright said the Government's future compensation costs and WorkCover's liability were different propositions and it was "misleading" to suggest otherwise.
The Premier's Department annual report shows there were 5012 claims in Government departments and agencies in 2006-07, down from 5111 in 2005-06.
“AUSTRALIAN Government investment funds are putting nearly 50 times more money into the fossil fuel and uranium industries than into renewable energy, a new report has found. Large Government-owned investors, including the Federal Government’s Future Fund and state bodies such as the Workcover Authority, are investing in direct conflict with their governments’ plans to reduce greenhouse emissions, according to the report, to be released today by the Australian Conservation Foundation. 78 per cent of Australians remain unaware that the fossil fuel industry receives taxpayer subsidies of just over $800 per person each year, about 28 times the amount given in subsidies to the renewable industry. Ninety per cent of those polled said they would prefer to see renewable energy given the same subsidies as the coal, oil and gas industries.”
Advertiser Editorial: Putting a price on corruption
Article from: The Advertiser
March 12, 2008 12:20am
AN independent anti-corruption authority should be established in South Australia with the power to investigate complaints against the State Government, local government and police.
The idea has been revived by Local Government Association executive director Wendy Campana, who has called for an anti-corruption body to investigate complaints about local government activities.
Ms Campana singled out the inability of the police Anti-Corruption Branch to initiate corruption inquiries, rather than simply investigate matters to which it had been referred.
The State Government has resisted previous calls for a permanent anti-corruption commission, arguing that it could not be justified on the basis of cost.
But corruption cannot be measured in terms of cost. If the Government has nothing to hide it has nothing to fear. It should follow the lead set by New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia and establish an anti-corruption commission.
Innocence cannot be assumed. It should be demonstrated by transparent accountability.
In 2003 Frank Costigan QC said corruption in Queensland under the Bjelke-Petersen government, corruption in the NSW and WA Police Forces, serious problems in the Victoria drug squad and massive corporate scandals in HIH and One-Tel were all examples of institutionalised corruption in Australia.
Mr Costigan said all these incidents, and others, revealed a common thread of lies, secrecy and greed, whether for power or money – or both.
Are we to believe greed, lies and secrecy occur in other states but not in SA?
SA has an Auditor-General, an Ombudsman and the Police Complaints Authority.
But, while these watchdogs have powers of investigation in narrow areas of government and police activity, there is no independent authority in SA where people can report broad concerns about possible government or police corruption.
In NSW the Independent Commission Against Corruption earlier this month recommended that the Wollongong Council – enmeshed in property scandals – should be sacked.
No parallel authority exists in SA to carry out a similar investigation, or make recommendations with similar teeth.
Ms Campana is right to advocate an anti-corruption authority for local government.
But it should be extended to embrace the State Government and its utilities.
I wonder if anyone has ever considered taking legal action against Workcover for the tort of "official intimidation"
It was left open for further cases in Northern Territory v Mengel 185 CLR 307
Seems like its all done and dusted, injured workers can expect a letter from EML within two weeks. This is total injustice that WorkCover can get away with this, and the fact that nobody can fully understand the Bill even makes it worse.
I have also been told of this high court decision. The governments action in ramming this Bill through is a typicle example. Should make some interesting times ahead.......
WorkCover is exactly where the Liberal Party wants it. Dont hold your breath on them trying to block the reforms because having the Labor Party push the reforms through will make the Labor Party the wrong doers in election time.
Why would the Liberals stop the perfect scenerio in what they would have had to do if they were in office.
I have to agree with the above comment in relation to the Liberal party. There is no way they will block these reforms because it will hurt Labor. However after the reforms have been forced thru, they will push for the parliamentary inquiery to gain ammo for the next election.
Who ever has been consulting the Labor ministers have got it so wrong, but if they fall for it they only have themselves to blame. I wonder if they have set a time limit on when they think they made the right choice because the way I see it nothing will change before the next election. In fact the system will fail even more. All because they havent been instructed in the right manner..... what a disaster
The Unions will also gain if these reforms are pushed thru. Although they havent had the membership of previous times they now have a huge marketing tool to gain members and build their strength against Business's due to the fact workers need extra protection from employers now. Business SA havent really thought about this too much with the repacutions due to the eminent breakdown between employers and employees and the culture these reforms will cause.
Prosecution - Guilty pleas - Three charges - Failure to ensure safety of a worker - Failure to give notice of dangerous occurrence - Failure to provide and maintain safe plant - Inspections and risk assessments were not effectively performed - Company relied on experience of its operators - Two incidents involving same plant and different employees within five weeks - (i) Employee’s lower leg immersed in hot water tank when corroded and damaged mesh walkway gave way which was inadequately maintained - Leg trapped for a short period - Burn injury - (ii) Employee’s foot briefly immersed in same hot water tank when employee stepped backwards into uncovered manhole - Less serious burn injury - Immersion for brief period - Failure to notify Workplace Services of occurrence of second incident - Mitigatory circumstances - Convictions recorded on all counts - Penalties of $22,000, $5,000 and $1,500 respectively, all reduced by 25% on account of early plea and contrition plus costs - Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1996 s 19(1) and Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1995 regs 1 and 6.
Prosecution - Guilty plea - Failure to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that employee was safe from injury and risks to health - Labour hire business assigned an inexperienced eighteen year old employee to work for a manufacturing business as a labourer - Unknown to labour hirer its employee was required to operate an unguarded pipe bending machine - On the employees second day of work fingers on both his hands were trapped and crushed, resulting in broken bone and two finger tip amputations - Failure to clearly identify the work to be undertaken - Failure to instruct employee not to undertake different duties and to report such requests - Failure to maintain effective system of site visits, and to ensure host employer advised if different tasks were to be undertaken - Parity of sentencing of host employer - Held: Fine of $9,000 and conviction - S 19 Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986.
Mr Watson was appointed Trans Adelaide CEO after his stint with Sydney Ferries.
The former Sydney Ferries chief, Bill Watson, was sacked the day after the NSW corruption watchdog referred claims about him to the State Transit Authority for investigation.
And the State Opposition aired separate allegations against Mr Watson during an inquiry at Parliament yesterday, claiming it had been told a Sydney Ferries contract was awarded to a company owned by his brother-in-law.
Mr Watson was sacked as general manager on Thursday afternoon in a surprise move, with no detailed indication of the reason. He had been due to give evidence to the inquiry yesterday.
In evidence, the State Transit Authority's chief executive, John Stott, revealed he removed Mr Watson after the Independent Commission Against Corruption referred allegations about Mr Watson to the authority via the Ministry of Transport on Wednesday for internal investigation.
Released 4 April 2008
RELEASE DATE 04/04/2008
The following statement was read out in the SA Parliament by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Michael Wright on Thursday, 4 April 2007 in response to this advertisement placed by the Australian Lawyers Alliance
I know there is some distress in the community about the changes proposed by the Government. I acknowledge there will be some reductions in benefits as a result of these reforms. But what has disappointed and frustrated me during the public debate on this issue, both in and outside of this House is the fearmongering and disinformation campaigns that have been run by some organisations. As an example of this is an advertisement that was published by the Australian Lawyers Alliance in yesterday’s Advertiser.
An example of this is an advertisement that was published by the Australian Lawyers Alliance in the Advertiser on Wednesday 3 April.
They cited examples of four injured workers who would be affected by this legislation, Michael, Andrew, Sascha and John (not their real names) with various claims these workers would suffer under these reforms.
The ALA claimed Michael’s payments would cease immediately upon passage of this Bill. Despite being injured more than 2.5 years ago he would remain on 80% of his pre-injury earnings providing he was working to his maximum capacity. If he was not working to his maximum capacity, his entitlement to ongoing payments would cease. It is important to note that the nature and extent of rehabilitation provided would be considered when determining whether there is a capacity for work. The South Australian Workers Rehabilitation Scheme is not an ongoing pension scheme. Its objective is to provide short-term support and rehabilitation to injured workers while they recover and return to work, providing only longer-term support to those who are seriously injured and unable to return to work.
In regard to Andrew, who the ALA said would immediately lose his weekly payments and have reduced lump sums, under the new legislation he would be entitled to payments immediately under provisional liability enabling rehabilitation to commence immediately. He would then be entitled to 100% of his pre-injury earnings for the first 13 weeks, reduced to 90% at 13 weeks (based on the amendments I have proposed) and 80% at 26 weeks. If Andrew was seriously and permanently impaired he would have access to increased lump sum benefits which have almost doubled from $230,000 to $400,000 in the proposed legislation.
In regard to Sascha who the ALA said struggled to her claim accepted and will now have her payments stopped – under the new legislation she would be entitled to payments immediately under provisional liability enabling rehabilitation to commence immediately. If Sascha had no capacity for work after three years, she would be entitled to ongoing weekly payments at 80% of per pre-injury earnings. Similarly, if Sasha had capacity to work and was working to that capacity, she would be entitled to ongoing top up weekly payments at 80% of pre-injury earnings. However, if she had capacity and was not working to that capacity, she would no longer be entitled to ongoing payments. This is consistent with the objective of the Scheme to provide short-term support and rehabilitation to injured workers while they recover and return to work, providing only longer-term support to those who are seriously injured and unable to return to work.
In regard to John who the ALA said suffered many serious and permanent disabilities, on that basis that he would be entitled to increased lump sum benefits, which have doubled from $230,000 to $400,000 in the proposed legislation.
Now I don’t know the details of each of those individual cases, but there really is some misinformation presented in those case studies and I am concerned that the fearmongering of a number of interest groups in connection with this Bill has caused undue distress to people currently on WorkCover.
If there is some anxiety amongst injured workers in relation to these reforms, why dont you Mr Wright write to the injured workers and explain in laymans terms on how will they effect each and every one. You have not released any details in the print media on what changes will occur. I feel you too are confused on the contents of the Bill otherwise as Industrial minister i feel it is your obligation to explain.
Posted by dazed and confused at 9:21 PM, 14/4/2008
April 4th, 2008 by seanie
The Verdict
The state government’s amendments to its controversial WorkCover legislation have served to tip the scales further in favour of employers.
SA Unions Secretary, Janet Giles has disputed the Industrial Relations Minister’s suggestion that the amendments were achieved through discussion with unions and business.
“These changes are manifestly inadequate and show that our concerns are falling on deaf ears. We have put comprehensive proposals to the government in the past 2 weeks, yet none of yesterday’s amendments reflected the union position.”
“These changes are a stunt that proves the much vaunted negotiations were a sham. The amendments are merely an attempt to make Minister Wright appear reasonable, while distracting the public from our highly effective campaign.”
“Minister Wright’s subsequent comments that this is his final position have exposed a government determined to attack injured workers by cutting their pay and stripping away their rights, while at the same time delivering a financial windfall to employers”.
“Mike Rann has lost the right to claim he’s a Premier who represents the interests of working families”, Ms Giles says.
“We are watching this government like a hawk and will do so until we achieve a fair fix for WorkCover.”
This is what I would like to say about QBE Workcover. It is the most dreadful of all compensation insurers in the world. I have now been on Workcover for twenty three years and what have they done for me, nothing, I do not even have a bed to sleep in anymore, oh yes my wife can sleep in our bed but because of my injury worsening I have to sleep sitting up in my lounge room chair, what a joke, it even took them nearly three years before I had my first operation and then it was because I requested it and not because of them.
I received my injury when I was thirty three years of age, I am now going on fifty six. Did I get compensated?, well you may think so for all they gave me was twenty four thousand dollars for the rest of my life and a pitiful weekly compensation cheque. How disgusting of them, don't they have any concern or feelings for peoples lives.
It is now the year 2008 are they going to help me now or are they waiting for me to die like I nearly did six years ago. I once was a proud man, a hard worker who did what ever was required and most of my working life I did eighty to over one hundred hours a week except when I was a manager in Coles then I did a normal days work. Now I have trouble standing more then five minutes, walking more then five minutes, what have they done for me, or should I say what and when will they finally see that I am in terrible pain and just want to live and earn a reasonable weekly pay packet and be able to hold my head up. And when someone asks what I do for a living, I can be proud.
I was told in 1995 that when a person turns fifty five they would back them in a venture if requested well why can't they do that or why can't they just pay me out. I should of had a nice home at my age, I should of had superannuation, and I should of been able to be proud of myself but what have I got, all I have is a express ticket to the never never.
If they do not like what I am saying well then do what they will for I have had enough and I do not care who knows.
WorkCover's "true cost" Press Release. They can't speak the truth!
Read the press release posted above, then read through the spin...
Comments
1. Seems WorkCover are not keen to acknowledge that the scheme actually has the Word Compensation in its real name so they now refer to it as the Workers Rehabilitation Scheme!
2. I have read each of the objects and don’t see short term being mentioned, in fact, return to the community and denial of common law infers the Workers Compensation & Rehabilitation Scheme is in for the long haul!
3. Now they seem to have confused themselves, it is only short term for those that need short term support and is only long term for those who need long term support! Maybe it can also be said to only provides protection for WorkCover and EML Employees who lie and cheat but NOT for the honest ones!
WorkCover's "true cost" Press Release. They can't speak the truth!
Read the press release posted above, then read through the spin...
Comments
1. Seems WorkCover are not keen to acknowledge that the scheme actually has the Word Compensation in its real name so they now refer to it as the Workers Rehabilitation Scheme!
2. I have read each of the objects and don’t see short term being mentioned, in fact, return to the community and denial of common law infers the Workers Compensation & Rehabilitation Scheme is in for the long haul!
3. Now they seem to have confused themselves, it is only short term for those that need short term support and is only long term for those who need long term support! Maybe it can also be said to only provides protection for WorkCover and EML Employees who lie and cheat but NOT for the honest ones!
WorkCover releases half-year result
WorkCoverSA's unfunded liability has increased to $911 million after a loss of $67.9 million for the hal-year to 31 December 2007. The Scheme is 63.4% funded.
What is a hal???
"$67.9 million for the hal-year to 31 December 2007"
I have just received a letter from WorkCover stating they are conducting a survey of injured workers to determine whether there has been an improvement or deterioration in injured workers' experience with the scheme and the performance of employers Mutual.
I can gather they havent listened to the radio or watched television lately or even read the comments on this site.
If I am correct and there would be a large amount of claimants that would be removed from the system, what happens to payments to medicare for outstanding medical fees. To use me as an example, my claim was originally disputed and finally accepted but the medicals were never refunded to Medicare. They usually wait for a section 43 or a redemption. I can see a lot of payments would have to be finalised before any workers are taken off the system as these workers would not want to have the responsibility. I wonder if Medicare have been advised?
NINE foreigners have been detained after being found working without permits on an Adelaide Hills fruit farm.
Immigration officers found one Chinese national, three Malaysians and five Cambodians near Mount Barker on Tuesday, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Chris Evans says.
Six will be deported, two will leave voluntarily and options are being examined for the remaining one.
"The Rudd government takes a zero-tolerance approach towards illegal workers and similarly, there are no excuses for employers who engage workers without valid visas," Senator Evans said.
He warned employers they faced "severe penalties" if they hired workers who did not have work rights in Australia.
The nine included four people described as unlawful non-citizens and five whose visas were cancelled because they did not have the right to work in Australia.
Dear Injured Workers of Australia: I will say this about your unions, they seem to be backing up their former members and not letting "government" / political parties bully with out a fight. Here in Nova Scotia Canada , the Unions are in the back pocket of the political parties and we also must fight with a Unionized Workers Compensation Board. Imagine that, a union protecting a "government" agency that abuses it injured patients! I hope that the entire labor movement in Australia gets behind those injured on the job and that they fight like hell to get rid of those elected to political office who have decided they would sooner abuse injured workers. Any political candidate or political party who choses to abuse the disadvantaged injured worker ...cannot be trusted , because they will do the same to any citizen. I say to the Unions of Australia, STAND YOUR GROUND , for everyone is but one mistake away from a hospital bed. Fight. Take Care Wayne Coady 21 Ashgrove Avenue Cole Harbour Nova Scotia (Canada ) Cole Harbour
Control yourself or 'you will go to jail', foul-mouthed litigant warned
Article from: The Advertiser
SEAN FEWSTER, COURT REPORTER
April 17, 2008 12:00pm
A BELLIGERENT, foul-mouthed litigant has left court with his head bowed after being told one more outburst will land him in jail for three months.
The Supreme Court today warned Markham Moore-McQuillan his profanity-laden appearances – a regular feature of the South Australian justice system for a decade – will no longer be tolerated.
Justice Margaret Nyland said she would activate his suspended three-month jail term if he misbehaved again.
"If there are any further problems with the court, you will go to jail – do you understand that?" she said.
"I need to make it quite clear that, in the event of there being a repetition of this behaviour or any other inappropriate behaviour in the courts, you will be required to serve time."
Moore-McQuillan, 47, has contested a number of lawsuits with the WorkCover Corporation since the late 1990s.
In March 2007, he verbally abused Justice John Perry for ruling against his latest claim.
He shouted obscenities at Justice Perry and accused him of being "corrupt".
He was charged with contempt four days later.
Today, Justice Nyland said Moore-McQuillan's conduct was appalling.
"Describing Justice Perry as corrupt was an insult of the worst kind," she said.
She rejected Moore-McQuillan's claims he lacked control over his outbursts.
"The statements were deliberately made by you to try and insult, ridicule and defy the authority of the court simply because you had received a judgment that was not in your favour," she said.
Prosecutors had argued jailing Moore-McQuillan was "the only way" to "guarantee the safety" of court users.
They said he had numerous convictions and previous stints in jail for intimidating and physically assaulting lawyers, process servers and court staff.
Justice Nyland, however, suspended his sentence on condition of an 18-month, $100 bond.
"If there is any other misconduct by you, it will be considered a breach of the bond," she said.
If you feel you have outstanding monies owed to Medicare from WorkCover you can write to Medicare and ask for a history statement from the date of your injury. This can be sent to your case manager and ask them to settle the recoveries. This will save any witholding in your sec43 or redemption payment (10%) and more importanly these payments should be made by WorkCover if you have been kicked off the system.
Medicare
GPO Box 9822
Adelaide
5001.
Ask for your History statement from date of injury plus supply your Medicare number.
Dear South Australians,
Over recent months, there has been much public debate about the state of the WorkCover Scheme and the Government's package of legislative changes-
The South Australian Scheme has the worst return to work rates in Australia -that is, fewer injured workers successfully return to work on our Scheme than any other scheme in the country.
The Scheme's problems are not new. A key driver of the Scheme's poor financial situation over the past 10 years has been the massive increase (up 150%) in the number of people staying on the Scheme for the long term (ie, three years or more).
Poor return to work outcomes have serious negative implications for injured workers, their families and society more broadly.
If the package of legislative reform passed in Parliament's House of Assembly recently, passes in the Legislative Council in its entirety, our Scheme will continue to be the fairest in the nation. Overall, we would continue to have the most generous entitlements for injured workers and their families.
Under the reform package:
• seriously injured workers would be better compensated, cared for and supported where needed, until retirement age
• our Scheme would be fully funded within six to seven years, eliminating the $911 m unfunded liability
• we would achieve better return to work rates, which would enable the average levy rate for employers to be reduced from 3.00% (highest in the nation) to 2.75% at 1 July 2009.
Much of the public debate about the package of reform has been confusing and ambiguous, creating anxiety for many sectors of the community. In the immediate future we will provide South Australians with the facts about the proposed changes to the Scheme.
It's time to dispel the myths and get back to the facts.
For more information on the Government's package of legislative reform please go to www.workcover.com
Yours sincerely,
Bruce Carter
Chairman
Why does he not tell the Public the truth.
That people are staying on the system longer because of poor management.
How is it that Workcover wants to reform the system so that injured workers stay on the system till retirement age yet on the other hand they are complaining that people are staying on the system for more than three years?
Even Dumb Freddy can work that one out..
No wonder their is such a problem with the unfunded liability.
How is the system going to better compensate injured workers until retirement age, achieve better return to work rates and reduce the levy rates to 2.75%?
The problem Bruce is in the word retirement age!!!!
No accountant could make any predictions about any liability or any levy rates with a system that is going to continually increase its liability.
ie every year more injured workers will be staying on the system longer as they will be stuck there until retirement age.
-every year the number of people in the workforce increases- more injured workers will be stuck on workcover
-every year the number staying on the system until retirement will increase - a 20 year old worker will stay for 45 years.
That means the prediction of liability may not stabilise for 45 years if numerous young people are injured at work.
If this number increases it will keep blowing out.
Bruce could only hope more 65 year olds got injured instead of young people.
That demonstrates a lack of financial planning and understanding that even a first year business student would be able to comprehend.
-the only fix for Workcover is to sack the non -performers.
Unfunded liability reduces by $32 million
Release date: 18/3/2004
WorkCover target average levy rate unchanged
There will be no general increase in workers compensation levy rates for SA employers in 2004-2005.
Following a review of the overall position of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme, as at 31 December 2003, the WorkCover Board has announced it will maintain the target average levy rate at 3.0 per cent (of remuneration) next financial year (2004-2005).
WorkCover Chair Mr Bruce Carter said the scheme unfunded liability fell to $559 million at 31 December 2003, down from $591 million at 30 June 2003. (The unfunded liability is the difference between WorkCover’s assets and the actuary’s estimate of the claims liability of the scheme).
Mr Carter cautioned that the operating surplus of $32 million achieved in the six months to 31 December was due to improved investment returns and increased levy collections in the first half of 2003-2004, not improvement in claim outcomes, which he expects will take several years to emerge.
“However, this is still a small step in the right direction,” Mr Carter said.
“Cash flow was boosted by improvement in investment returns ($49 million for the half year - $28 million above forecast), and a $50 million increase in levy collections in the six months to 31 December,” Mr Carter said.
“On current settings and barring any major unexpected events, the Board still anticipates the scheme will recover to be fully funded within ten years.”
Chair Bruce Carter said cash flow was strong with a positive inflow of $68 million from operating activities in 2003-2004 and the target average levy rate should be maintained at 3.0 per cent.
“Barring any major unexpected events, the Board still anticipates the Scheme will recover to be fully funded by 2012-2013,” Mr Carter said.
In 2003-2004, a major boost in investment and levy income of $184 million was mostly negated by a $144 million rise in the actuary’s assessment of the claims liability of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme.
The estimate of the net claims liability grew by $144 million (to $1.33 billion) due to:
an increase in the number of people staying on the Scheme and the associated cost of their claims ($135 million)
increase in provider costs ($6 million)
reassessment of prior estimates due to the actuary’s improved knowledge of the Scheme’s dynamics ($17 million)
the impact of the prudential margin ($9 million)
a rise in the discount rate (which reflects movement in interest rates which are outside the control of the Corporation) now being used to estimate future payments in current dollar value ($30 million decrease)
the impact of a change in interpretation of application of GST ($7 million - including $3.9 million relating to prior years).
2003: (WorkCover web site) “Barring any major unexpected events, the Board still anticipates the Scheme will recover to be fully funded by 2012-2013,” Mr Carter said.
Fast Forward to 2008 in a statement made by Bruce Carter in an advertisement in The Advertiser and Sunday Mail: Our Scheme would be fully funded within six to seven years. (thats makes it 2014/15).
How is it that Work-Cover wants to reform the system so that injured workers stay on the system till retirement age yet they are complaining that people are staying on the system for more than three years?
How is it that Work-Cover wants to reform the system so that injured workers stay on the system till retirement age yet they are complaining that people are staying on the system for more than three years?
they say retirement age but what they dont say is that you will have to present before their medical panel to prove you are truely injured
and we al know that the medical panel will be hand picked by rann worckcover and his cronies
from what i hear if they deem you are capable to do 1 hours work (anything) they can take you off of the system and with no legal representatives to pursuade them otherwise
Its funny how Michael Wright thinks "The Letter" was an isolated case. I received by 107B file and there was another workers information in there. Its ok Lisa Sparrow, I wont tell anybody.
October 2008 they will announce the liability has hit $1.25 Billion, blame it on the injured workers and the downturn in the financial markets.
October 2009 Liability $1.5 Billion - They will say we have implemented the new changes, taking a bit longer than we hoped, it won't happen overnight but it will happen.
December 2009 - Bruce will resign from board to pursue other interests, he knows what is coming!
March 2010 - The board are panicking, They know the liability is out of control. They could only throw a few off benefits and noone knows what to do. The election thunders in and hopefully Labour will get the spanking they deserve.
October 2010. Liberal Party comes in, digs out the file, sacks the Board and a fair chunk of the Management and insists they go back to compliance with the original intention of the Legislation.
I just found this, whats the fuss? I have received documents of other claimants in my 107B and WorkCover just dismissed it when i sent them back..
MORE than a dozen confidential medical records of Victorian WorkCover patients have been sent by mistake to a member of the public in a breach of patient confidentiality.
WorkSafe Victoria has sought an urgent briefing on the unauthorised release of the documents, which include some marked "private and confidential".
It is believed the patients involved have not yet been told their private medical records have been compromised.
Rye resident Trent Flynn told The Sunday Age he was shocked when he opened his mail in February and discovered page after page of medical records concerning strangers. "It is unbelievable," he said.
The documents sent to him by QBE Workers Compensation, an agent of the Victorian WorkCover Authority, included patients' names and addresses, injury descriptions, medical assistance provided and doctors' details.
I have noticed the section of "Surveilance and Ivestigtion" has vanished from the Blog. Maybe the word GANGSTALKING has been mentioned against injured workers
The investigators section is still on the blog, if you go back to the home page of this blog site at the bottom there is an arrow to go to next page, you will find it there.
Mark Parnell and Anne Bressington speech to parliament
MPs talk for 13 hours to stall WorkCover Bill
TIM DORNIN
May 09, 2008 05:15pm
A SOUTH Australian MP who delivered an eight-hour speech to State Parliament to thwart WorkCover reforms says he could have spoken for twice as long.
Greens MP Mark Parnell's oratory marathon - aimed at delaying a Bill he opposes - may well be the longest filibuster in a state parliament.
He can't claim an Australian record for filibustering - one senator spoke for more than 12 hours in 1918 - and his effort pales in comparison to some others overseas.
Debating changes to the WorkCover workers' compensation scheme, Mr Parnell got to his feet in the SA Legislative Council yesterday morning and, except for breaks for lunch and dinner, held the floor until late last night.
He was followed by independent MP Ann Bressington, who spoke for five hours, before debate on the Bill was adjourned at 4am today.
The pair had teamed up to stall a vote on the WorkCover changes, which would cut payments to some injured workers, and to get union and worker concerns on the public record.
In his monologue, Mr Parnell read the entire WorkCover Bill, presented his own analysis and then related the submissions from the union movement and stories from injured workers.
Suffering from little more than a sore neck for his efforts, he said today he could have gone on for another eight hours, but knew he was testing the limits of his parliamentary colleagues.
"Yes, I planned to speak for a long time. I didn't know how long it would be but in the end I cut it down,'' he said.
"Had I gone through all the material that I could have, it would have been twice as long.
"But I knew I was pushing the boundaries of parliamentary convention.
"No one goes for that long, it's not normally regarded as polite.''
Mr Parnell said he was not concerned with whether or not his speech was a record and would "not bother to find out''.
But the Parliamentary Library in Canberra said he had fallen well short of the longest speeches delivered at a federal level.
In the House of Representatives the record was held by Labor MP William "Jawbone'' Webster, who in 1909 spoke for 10 hours and 57 minutes.
In the Senate, Labor's Albert Gardiner held the floor for 12 hours and 40 minutes in 1918.
But even those were well short of the 24 hour and 18 minute filibuster by US Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond in 1957, while debating the Civil Rights Act.
Unions today hailed Mr Parnell's efforts as heroic and a staunch defence of the rights of injured workers.
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith, while supporting the Government's Bill, also defended his right to speak.
But Premier Mike Rann was less than impressed, describing Mr Parnell's and Ms Bressington's speeches as time-wasting games.
"I think that it's totally shameful, what we saw last night,'' he said.
"They chose to play games, and I think that shows contempt for the state.''
Mr Parnell said he made no apologies for taking as long as he did.
"Yes, I'm sorry that it had to be late at night, but that's the parliamentary process,'' he said.
They are now complaining the speech by Parnell and Bressington cost the tax payers $150,000. That is peanuts compared to what the WorkCover board has done since 2003.
Mice bell Rann’s cat
TOM RICHARDSON
12/05/2008 5:15:00 PM
Ann Bressington is getting the hang of this parliament lark. I don’t know whether she knows the definition of “filibuster” but she’s certainly employing the concept.
The anti-drug campaigner who flew into the Legislative Council on Nick Xenophon’s coat-tails is shaping up as a key opponent of the government’s contentious WorkCover Bill in the Upper House. Together with fellow cross-benchers Mark Parnell and Sandra Kanck, she is planning a rear-guard action that is rattling the government far more than anything the opposition might have accomplished. And for the simple reason that these cross-benchers flat-out oppose this bill. The opposition supports it, but is happy to see the government flailing.
Bressington’s speech against the WorkCover legislation is 500 pages long. I don’t know what her read-rate is, but even Rex Hunt would take a few days delivering that slice of text. Parnell’s speech is expected to take a good eight hours.
Opponents of the government’s changes to workers’ compensation know they can’t win in a vote, not with the government and opposition in cahoots. But the longer the vote is delayed, the longer the government suffers the political fallout. This Bill was delivered mid-term for a number of reasons, but two seem to suggest themselves: 1) so it didn’t cost Labor votes in last year’s federal election, and 2) so the government can get it out the way with plenty of time left before the state poll on March 18, 2010.
The longer it is held up, the more it presents itself as an election issue, one that will do little to buoy the ALP.
Labor insiders insist the legislation must become law before the end of June, so that businesses can enter the new financial year under the new regime. But there is another date that has the government rattled: August 15. The party’s state conference.
If WorkCover is not off the table by then, all the unions, state executive members and assorted factional warriors who strongly oppose the bill will line up to condemn the government. Look at the NSW Labor party’s recent convention, dominated by the spectre of internecine warfare over proposed power privatisations. It may be a necessary battle, but it’s a bad look, and not one a state government needs little more than a year out from an election against a revived opposition while the economy goes to hell in a hand basket.
So with all this to worry about, there were several reasons why the weekend’s Gouger Street shooting incident was pretty much the last thing the government needed. It did its best to generate pious outrage that its similarly contentious bill allowing police to place control orders on known bikie associates had been “held up” in the Upper House.
But it wasn’t helped when independents started circulating a memo from the government’s Upper House leader Paul Holloway, written to all Legislative Councillors, categorically identifying Labor’s sole priority for this week as passing the WorkCover Bill. There was no mention of the bikie Bill. It was a gift to the government’s myriad opponents: “the government is more interested in cutting workers’ entitlements than protecting its citizens”.
In desperation, the government started circulating a similar memo from last month, which stated that the Government’s priorities for that week, in order of importance, were 1) the WorkCover Bill, and 2) the bikies Bill. But it did little to save face, merely emphasising that a month later, neither Bill had been passed and the latter one had fallen completely off the radar after being adjourned for nine consecutive sitting days.
Labor cynically went so far as to try and turn the stalemate into a supporting argument for its bid to abolish the Upper House in a referendum. Kevin Foley labelled the Legislative Council an irrelevance, while Mike Rann denounced its non-Labor members at “rats and mice”. Let’s not kid ourselves here. Labor sat on its WorkCover recommendations until a politically propitious moment.
Martin Hamilton-Smith can be called a hypocrite for simultaneously bagging and supporting the Bill, but he is right when he says that Labor cannot rightly “whinge and complain” simply because everybody else does not “dance to their tune”. Upper House cross-benchers have every right to scrutinise any bill that comes their way. And if they want to play politics at the same time...well, hell, why not? Everyone else does!
Of course, by now the bikie legislation has passed the Upper House and, wouldn’t you know it? The government found they didn’t have it quite right the first time round, and chose to impose a host of amendments. I guess that means if we’re to accept seriously the need for genuine reform of the Legislative Council, we need to elect a halfway competent government first.
Foul-mouthed litigant blows his top in court - again
Article from: The Advertiser
SEAN FEWSTER, COURT REPORTER
May 29, 2008 12:30pm
MARKHAM Moore-McQuillan has a jail sentence hanging over his head - but it has done nothing to curb his belligerent behaviour in court.
Despite being told he would be jailed over any more profanity, he launched a foul-mouthed tirade during a Workers Compensation Tribunal hearing this month.
"Listen, you just shut the f--- up and f---ing sit down and don't be a d---head instead of f---ing turning around and (dictating) the terms," he told WorkCover lawyer Owen Downs.
Asked, by Justice Trevor Olsson, to calm down, Moore-McQuillan said: "I'm talking to you and I don't need this f---wit interrupting."
"It's bad enough I have to come in and I have to put up with your bias and his bias as well," he said.
Moore-McQuillan has contested a number of lawsuits with the WorkCover Corporation since the late 1990s.
In March last year, he accused the late Justice John Perry of being "corrupt" when he ruled against him.
In April, Justice Margaret Nyland sentenced him to a suspended three-month jail term.
"If there are any further problems with the court, you will go to jail. Do you understand that?," she said.
"In the event of there being a repetition of this behaviour or any other inappropriate behaviour in the courts, you will be required to serve time."
Moore-McQuillan appeared before the tribunal on May 12 – transcript for which was obtained by The Advertiser today.
Although Justice Olsson repeated Justice Nyland's warning, it did not stop Moore-McQuillan.
"I've tried every which way I can to come into this place, but I do not need to come here and be attacked by the sheriff and his f---wit as well," he said.
Justice Olsson said he was "not going to put up with that language".
"Well then, I'll go home and you can sort them out later," Moore-McQuillan said.
The case was subsequently adjourned.
The Advertiser understands action will be taken against Moore-McQuillan only if Justice Olsson refers the matter to the Supreme Court.
Nearly 15% of South Australian drivers seriously injured in road crashes are under the influence of sedatives, including Valium, yet police are unable to conduct roadside tests for such drugs. A recent Royal Adelaide Hospital study of 2,000 trauma patients found twice as many tested positive for sedatives than did for methamphetamines. Currently police only test for alcohol, cannabis and methamphetamines. RAH Director of Trauma Services DR William Griggs said the 12 month study there was a need to expand roadside testing to include sedatives. The study also found about a quarter of people seriously injured in workplace accidents were under the influence of at least one
drug.
A woman with severe depression had claimed the DSP as she had a serious disability and
was unable to work. The woman was given no impairment points and did not qualify for
a DSP as Centrelink found that her condition was not ‘treated and stabilised’. Despite
having a long term mental illness, the woman was not able to claim DSP as she required
the condition to be ‘treated and stabilised’ before being given an impairment rating. She
Mental Health Council of Australia
3
was placed on Newstart Allowance and a through a JCA was required to attend CRS
Australia for an occupational rehabilitation program.
Through an appeal, the decision by Centrelink was upheld on the grounds that with
treatment the condition would be resolved within two years. The decision did not
however consider whether or not treatment was actually available.
The woman had a detailed medical report prepared by her psychiatrist who had been
treating her for over 12 months. The report showed that the woman had been treated for
severe depression and had been suicidal when admitted to a psychiatric hospital. The
woman left hospital after six months of treatment but was readmitted a few weeks later.
The report also indicated the woman’s condition had deteriorated due to anxiety from
having to attend occupational rehabilitation. The report categorically stated that the
woman was unable to work and that the rehabilitation she had been receiving was
inappropriate. With treatment she was likely to remain stable for two years and would
clearly be unable to work.
This case study clearly shows that information from a medical officer is vital in
determining a person’s capacity to work. It also has a bearing on whether or not particular
interventions to increase work capacity are appropriate.
My partner suffered multiple fractures in a fall at work last week. He lives in SA but was working away on a job in NSW at the time. I believe he has the option of claiming in either state as he falls under both of their schemes.
From reading the stories on this board I am becoming very concerned about the level of beauracuracy we can expect during his recovery. In the past experience of bloggers here, will it be better to make a claim through NSW or SA? I understand also that the SA laws will change on first of July and would it be in my best interest to lodge a claim before or after this date?
His fall was due to negligence by his supervisor who was rushing to complete the job and didn't engage proper safety procedures. He is under pressure from his supervisor to state the accident was a result of a freak gust of wind. Should he obtain legal representation or do most people negotiate the workcover system on their own?
Any advice is greatly appreciated as already the system is becoming daunting and overwhelming.
I would seek advise from a NSW lawyer to see if your husband can sue under common law, receive fair compensation and leave the system. He would therefore be able to obtain NSW WorkCover benefits whilst in SA.
AN Albury solicitor says the Victorian Government faces the prospect of paying additional compensation to potentially 1000 or more WorkCover and Transport Accident Commission claimants after losing an appeal at the Victorian Court of Appeal last week.
The court endorsed an earlier decision by the Supreme Court that found the WorkCover Authority and the Victorian Medical Panel had used the wrong methodology in assessing the extent of the impairment suffered by Wodonga’s Paul Taylor who was involved in a truck accident near Benalla in 1997.
John Binnie, of Belbridge Hague, who fought the case with the firm’s partner Peter Simpson, believes Mr Taylor’s case will open the way for further compensation for those who have been incorrectly assessed for almost a decade.
He said the case was one of the most important injury cases determined in Victoria in a number of years and it had been one of the first files he had opened when he first went to work for Belbridge Hague.
“Hopefully this case is the end of a sorry saga which short-changed potentially a thousand or more injured workers and motorists who underwent spinal surgery,” Mr Binnie said.
“With the decision last week it’s now up to the Government to pay up so that injured people who have been waiting for almost 10 years can now receive what they are rightly entitled to under the law.”
Mr Binnie said the existing Workcover guides made it clear that for spinal injuries the structural damage done at the time of injury is the best indicator of long-term impairment.
He said the Government agencies had inappropriately influenced medical examiners to ignore this provision and this incorrect assessment method had been applied in Victoria since 1997.
“We believed strongly in this. I wrote to the editor of the guides who confirmed our interpretation and that gave us the encouragement to move forward,” he said.
Mr Binnie said he believed the assessment methods were tough enough without inaccurate interpretation encouraged by government bodies.
“The method used by WorkCover and the TAC in assessing injury claims involves applying an “impairment score” to the injured person using mandated American guides,” Mr Binnie said.
Injured Worker Survey
Hello injured workers, please if you could take the time to complete this new survey organised by the SA Unions on the impact of the south australian state government's legislation on injured workers:
From Wednesday morning on 5AA, for your information:
Rob Brokenshire, Family First MLC (5AA 9.09-9.20) WorkCover
(Byner: There’s been some investigations done into WorkCover … it’s controversial because the government changed the law and of course the union movement were not very happy … they’ll be less happy when they hear this because it appears that the government of this state is working at a furious pace to pay out a large number of WorkCover claimants to reduce the unfunded liability figure and show artificially that their recent WorkCover bill is working … the figures show between the 21/3/08 to 19/9/08 this year, there was 798 total redemption payments, totalling $62,799,823 an average pay out of $78,696, the highest offer was for $448,982, between the same dates there were also
254 WorkCover redemptions accepted but not yet paid out at a cost of $18,674,483, an average of $73,521, now this is a total of roughly a one thousand claimants, and $80m off the books in just a six month period, now my guest Rob Brokenshire has heard from WorkCover recipients that redemptions are coming thick and fast at the moment as the government desperately tries to get unfunded liability off the books in time for the next state election, now the question is, if they can do it now, why didn’t they do it earlier which arguably might have created a scenario where the unfunded liability was nowhere near what it was … Rob Brokenshire, what’s your understanding of what’s going on here?) … I’m very concerned about what’s going on here and I think most of my colleagues on the cross benches will be too because as you know, Family First and other cross bench members have been concerned about the draconian legislation that actually attacks the rights of workers, now I’ve had a number of clients, constituents coming into me … in the last several weeks, some can just not get a redemption for love nor money and we’re questioning whether there’s a black ban or a black list on those particular clients of WorkCover, others are telling me that they’re getting redemption offered like never before and in fact I’ve also been told that if they’ve offered say $65,000 for redemption and they say that’s not enough I believe I’m entitled to more, within a few weeks, or even days, they’re offered another $7,000 to $10,000, $12,000 - now the reason for raising this … in the past and I’d like to tell your listeners in the last two available reports from WorkCover, the last two annual reports available, $77m one year and $99m another year were paid out, that’s an average of $65,000 per WorkCover client, for the six month period that you’ve just highlighted … $81m an average of $76,000 has been paid out, now if that continues until March next year and we believe it will, that’s $160m paid out which is an enormous amount more than the previous two years and I have to say that can only be because they want - the government want to come out and tell people that their draconian legislation is getting the unfunded liability down and that’s not acceptable to me because I believe it’s a smoke and mirrors trick to … work against best interest of workers (Byner: Stay on the line.)
Dr Kevin Purse, Hawke Research Institute (5AA 9.13-9.16) WorkCover
(Byner: … how do you read this and good morning?) … I think what the government and what WorkCover is trying to do is to get as many long term claimants off the scheme in order to avoid a log jam when the new work capacity review provisions come into operation next year, that places workers in a invidious position, basically it’s a question of whether should they jump and jump now, or should they wait until next year and be pushed, under these work capacity review provisions, it will be possible for the government to terminate their payments altogether, or for WorkCover to terminate payments altogether, so I think most people are thinking that it will be better to take a lump sum payment now, that will assist the government and WorkCover because getting medical panels together which won’t happen until April next year could be quite difficult so the more people they can get off the scheme now, it will be easier for them later on (Byner: Question I have … why didn’t they do this a lot earlier?) well that’s a good question, I think they’
re doing it now because they want to clean the decks, next year they will make massive reductions in the scheme’s liability simply by being able to throw people off the scheme, what we’ve seen this year, or what we’ve seen to date with these redemptions, simply a fore taste of what’s to come as Robert Brokenshire was saying, it’s possible there will be up to 2,000 redemptions offered between now and say end of next March, after that redemptions won’t be used, or it will be used very sparingly, what the government will do instead … WorkCover will do … use the new legislation which enables them to terminate payments for most seriously injured workers after two and a half years … that will bring the liability down very dramatically (Byner: Are we saying that and the figures that Rob is using which he got from Freedom from Information, it seems that the offers being made now for redeeming you out of the scheme altogether are more generous than what they’ve been in the past to get people off) I think they are … sort of feedback I’ve been getting from some of the lawyers, rehab people and also some of the union people, they are a bit higher than what has been the case in the past … the point … with this sort of money, a lot of that could have been put into retraining and the fact of rehabilitation much earlier in the claims of these people, and they could have been productively back at work, what’s going to happen, once you’re off the scheme, an average pay out … of $77,000 seems like a lot of money, but for most people that’s going to be less than two years wages, now given a lot of these people are quite seriously injured and will have difficulty finding work, it’s not quite an attractive as it appears to be … it’s a question of the workers paying for the scheme’s funding position can be improved rather than that being achieved through effective rehab and retraining (Byner: … if you don’t take the offers now, you might be in a situation where you just get thrown off?) exactly … it’s still very important that people should seek advice either from their trade unionists … or from their lawyer … or get some financial advice … most people are putting two and two together and thinking it’s probably better to jump than to get pushed (Byner: … thanks.)
Janet Giles, Secretary, SA Unions (5AA 9.16-9.19) WorkCover
(Byner: … what do you think about this and good morning?) … the one comment I’d add to the other two people speaking … Robert and to Kevin … the thing that worries us is that WorkCover’s going to promote this as being a better return to work rate and we’ve always said that nobody mentions the return to work rate out there, they only measure people who are no longer on WorkCover payment, so these people may not be at work, in fact it’s very likely that if you’ve taken a redemption because you’
re so injured that people are not giving you work, that you actually go onto social security benefits or … not much income at all and have to really struggle even though you might get a pay out … when your 30 or 40 don’t last a very long time and you’ve got to live with that injury and then in the meantime, WorkCover can talk … about having a better return to work rate, we want them to stop using that language, to actually start calling it a discontinuance rate, rate of people who are no longer receiving payments (Byner: If you just get a redemption, you may not be working, it’s just not true to say that) yes but you watch the language, it’s already - when people talk about the return to work rate, they’re never talking about the return to work rate (Byner: Are you telling the people of SA that this money is being paid out in order to make the statistics look better than what really are?) absolutely, yeah because the only way that people compare schemes around the country … what’s your return to work rate, but no-one actually measures who’s returning to work, they only do it in the insurance sort of way … who’s not receiving payments anymore (Byner: How is SA Unions going to handle
this?) well … today we were outside the Hilton, and that’s a demonstration that unions in SA continuing to campaign, it’s good to see others in the community campaigning and members of Parliament and every time there’s an impact of the new laws, we’ll draw people’s attention to it, because today … first day that workers will receive the step down if they happen to be on benefits for more than 13 weeks, they’ll lost 10% of their payments today and the reason we’re outside the Hilton this morning is because it’s also, weirdly enough and very ironic that it’s the WorkCover Annual Conference and people were going in there to have a sumptuous breakfast, while workers lost 10% of their pays, so we’ll be just drawing attention to this and we’re calling on the State Government to sit down with us and reinstate fairness in the scheme, we haven’t given up campaigning, we want people to keep reminding and next April, that’s the big impact, Kevin Purse is quite right, we think there’s up to 3,000 people who will be kicked off the scheme next April unless they’ve been offered a redemption and then they’ll have to argue in front of a medical panel to have their payments reinstated (Byner: …
thanks.)
Back to Rob Brokenshire
(Byner: Rob Brokenshire, what should the public make of this?) well I think they need to be cautious and they need to be cynical about what’s happening, they need to remember that this legislation works very much against fair and reasonable rights for workers entitlements and this is a hood winking exercise and there’s no other way of describing it, just very quickly …. In 2002 only six years ago, the total unfunded liability for WorkCover was $63m, here in six months we’ve seen $61m paid out to get people off the books, you’ve got to ask yourself, what happened to the management, where was the Minister, and why now are the workers getting kicked in the guts and yet management seem to be staying there and getting increases in their salaries? (Byner: … thanks.)
EML getting cocky? suggestion from caseworker(the person serving in my best interest) tells me " will be cut-off workcover & be back on the dole".whoops!! workcover say's my caseworker can't say that, or make it happen.. (p.s. i was'nt on the dole) i worked particularly long hours over a lengthy period & i was highly effective in my job..people recon they actually appreciated my in-put..smilingly, am i now subject to the judgements the whims of sm insurance clerk on my telephone? (why does he feel he knows sm-thing i dont??) every week a new problem, fax's not received, untruths & rediculous lies.. ie. my file not linked to caseworker, or, "it wont be done next week either, b'cos i'm moving my desk next week!" (cute)
i might be off-work nOw but, at least i did my job when i was on deck.. where do EML find these brilliant people? have i died and gone to hell?
I was hit by a car on my way to work 24/4/08, I recieved fractures to my wrist, clavicle, T-6 vertebra, 6,8&9 ribs. I have lost my job & my career as a result. I have moved iner-state. I arranged for surgery to correct my wrist and shoulder injuries, BUT the workers compensation insurance company, decided not to approve the surgery. Without this surgery I can not return to work as the tendons have been separated from the bone in both cases. Now they have approved the surgery but the surgeon has blacklisted me doe to the insurance company and the treatment given by them. I am chasimg up the referal to another surgeon but he doesn't exist in the phone book, internet, and my GP has not heard of this Orthopeadic surgeon.
My self esteem isand moral is at rock bottom, I can not even be bothered to get out of bed some days, and others I just get out of bed to go to the toilet then back to bed.
Can anyone advise of how I can turn my life around please?
I ecently secured a law firm from Sydney to act on my behalf for a nominal defendant case and they totally screwed it up.
They have now dropped the matter and sent me a bill that requires payment within 14 days. It took 5 days for the bill to arrive which leaves 9 days, it arrived on Friday which now leaves 7 days to find the rediculous amount claimed by this $$$$leach law firm.
I do not have a job or a career and am in debt to my family for thousands of dollars.
Is it fair or legal that lawyers can do this? Is this how they make their money by ripping off the injured person?
Brydens law firm thinks it is.
I HAVE FOUND THAT MANY OF THESE DOCTORS ARE NOT VERY ACCURATE IN THEIR REPORTS. I HAVE FOUND THIS UPSETTING AND UNFAIR, AS THESE LIES ARE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH. wORKCOVER NAD INSURANCE AGENTS DO NOT ACCEPT ANY FEED BACK OR PROOF THAT THESE REPORTS CONTAINING DAMAGING ANS DISTRESSING INFORMATION - I SUSPECT THIS IS BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM TO MAKE ME LOOK LIKE I AM LYING OR THAT MY INJURY IS NOT AS SEVERE. THERE IS A WEBSITE CALLED RATE MD IT IS A SITE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO RATE YOUR MEDICAL PRATITIONER. I WOULD SUGGEST TAT IF ALL INJURED WORKERS WHO ARE UNHAPPY WITH INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REPORTS THAT ARE INACCURTE TO GO TO THIS SITE AND SAY SO. IF WE ALL DO IT IT WILL FORCE DOCTORS TO BE MORE ACCOUNTABLE AND WORKCOVER WILL HAVE TO STOP USING THESS LIERS IF THERE ARE PLENTY OF COMPLAINTS. THE OTHER OPTION IS TO CHECK A DR BEFORE GOING AND IF MANY PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY, ASK TO BE SENT TO ANOTHER DR. PLEASE EVERYONE LETS DO THIS, WE CAN THEN HELP PROTECT AND SUPPORT EACH OTHER BY SHARING AOUR EXPERIENCE AND STOP THE UNFAIRNESS.
I had an accident at a construaction site in march 2004 where a peice of 12mm rio bar struck the right side of my forehead eye socket after projecting of a 9 inch grinding disc. I was then told to go home before my eyes closed. No hospital no ambulance and three years of harrassment for filing for workers compensation before finally going to court. The Magistrate granted workers compensation yet GIO still wont send a letter about liability and my former employer to this day has not notified ACT workcover. This experience has left a bad taste in my mouth and I now find it hard to trust anyone. Something needs to be done to protect workers.
